Shyam Krushna Salvi vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 31 of 2023 registered with Guhaghar Police Station, Dist. Ratnagiri (for short, ‘FIR’) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and filing of the charge-sheet pursuant thereto for the offences punishable U/s’s 363, 376, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, vide proceedings bearing Special Case No. 16 of 2023, are pending on the file of the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Chiplun.

Learned counsel for the applicant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and accordingly Respondent Nos. 2, Victim, and 3, informant, father of victim, have given no objection to quash the F.I.R. and proceedings, bearing Special Case No. 16 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Chiplun. They also submitted that the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 (victim) are living together and have a minor son. Therefore, they urged the Court to take the matter for hearing.

On 11^th April, 2023, Respondent No. 3 – father of the victim lodged a report against the applicant alleging that he has abducted her daughter, i.e. Respondent No. 2 – victim. Based on said report, offence came to be registered against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the victim at the time of incident was minor, and therefore, Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C., Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 have been incorporated in the charge-sheet. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet in the Court, and the same is pending before the learned Special Judge vide Special Case No. 16 of 2023.

Learned counsel for the Applicant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, particularly the Applicant got married to the victim, i.e. Respondent No. 2, on 05^th April, 2024, and since then they are living together. They also pointed out their Marriage Registration Certificate. They further submitted that during the wedlock, they have been blessed with a son. Therefore, they submit that in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Faijan Anwarul Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., Criminal Writ Petition No. 1142 of 2023, Dt. 18^th November, 2025 and K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1048, the Application be allowed, and the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the proceedings against the Applicant be quashed and set aside.

Today, the Applicant as well as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present before the Court. Their respective counsel identifies them. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have admitted the contents of their respective affidavits and submitted that they have voluntarily given no objection to quashing the F.I.R., charge-sheet, and the proceedings bearing Special Case No. 16 of 2023. Respondent No. 2 also submitted that she is living a happy married life with the Applicant and their minor son. She has no grievance with the Applicant if the Applicant is granted relief as prayed. Their statements in the affidavit as well as in person are accepted.

Perused the affidavit filed by the victim. I would like to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the same, as under :-

Similarly, Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit before this Court. I would like to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the same, as under :-

This Court, in Faijan Anwarul Shaikh (supra), after considering the dictum laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine 614 and K. Kirubakaran (supra), held that the proceedings under the POCSO Act were quashed and set aside.

Apart from that, it appears that in the marriage certificate the age of the victim is mentioned as 18 years; in fact, at the time of marriage she was above 17 years but below 18 years. After attaining majority, she again married the Applicant, and during the wedlock she begot a son, Shiv, on 09^th July, 2025, and they are living together happily. The victim and her father have reiterated the version in the affidavit before this Court. They also state that from the date of marriage, both the victim and the Applicant have been residing together peacefully and happily.

In the wake of a similar scenario and the dictum laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred judgments, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the trial would certainly break the marriage. Ultimately, the future of the victim girl and her child would be in the dark. On the other hand, the victim and her father's affidavit reveals that the victim is living happily with the Applicant and her son. Considering the exceptional circumstances made out before this Court and taking into account the future of the victim, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court.

Besides, learned counsel for the applicant expressed his willingness to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards rotating the police machinery with the Army Central Welfare Fund, details of which are as under :-Bank : Union Bank of India IFSC : Sarafa Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006 A/c No.: 520101236373338

In the result, the Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii), which read thus :-