1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2628 OF 2010 Harshad S. Tapkir ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mrs.P.P.Kakade i/b. Mr.Subhash Mulyalkar for Applicant Mr.S.R. Shinde- APP for State Mr.Satyarat P. Joshi for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8TH JUNE,2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This application is filed by the applicant for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 vide C.R. No. 66/2010 for the offence punishable under sections 376,323, 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune. 2 3. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and also has filed her affidavit, stating therein that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed and set aside. I asked Mrs. Poonam Bhosale-the learned APP for the State to make an enquiry with the Respondent No.2 and also asked her to point out whether any consent given by her was on her own free will. Mrs. Bhosale interviewed the Respondent No.2 and has stated that the Respondent No.2 has given her consent in the affidavit on her own free will. The Respondent No.2 who is present in the Court has reiterated that the affidavit dated 25th May, 2010 is filed by her . 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has invited my attention to the various orders passed by this Court in similar cases where allegation were made for the offence punishable under sections 376, 506(1) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code wherein this court after recording the consent given by the Complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. She has invited my attention to the passed in Criminal Application No. 4112 of 2008 in the case of Prabhu Uttamchand Jodhwani V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Coram: Smt.R.P. Sondur Baldota J.) dated 29th January,2010, judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court 3 (Coram:Mr.S.A.Bobade J.)dated 11th October, 2009 in Criminal Application No. 4419 of 2009 in the case of Mrs.Pratibha Jayraj Kamble and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 and also other judgments of this Court in the cases where the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed. In the case of Sou.Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr. Reported in 2004 All MR (Cri) page 2183 also offence under sections 142, 147, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009 dated 4th March, 2010. 5. In view of the catena of judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Applicant, in my view, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 should not be quashed. The ratio of the judgments, therefore, squarely applies to the present case. 6. Criminal application is allowed and is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 4 7. Parties to act on the authenticated copy. The accused in in jail. The Accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (V.M. KANADE J.)