The woman claimed in the complaint that she had been raped and compelled to terminate her pregnancy by the accused. However, she later filed an affidavit stating that she had no objection if the complaint was quashed.
The Bombay High Court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on September 20 after the complainant, who had alleged assault and non-consensual pregnancy terminations, agreed to the case’s dismissal by consent.
Judges Anuja Prabhudessai and NR Borkar noted that, even if the FIR’s allegations were fully accepted, it appeared that the relationship between the parties had been consensual. They stated, “After reviewing the records, we believe that the facts presented in the FIR and other evidence, taken together, do not disclose any heinous and grave offense.”
Additionally, the complainant submitted an affidavit in which she expressed no objection to the FIR’s dismissal, confirming her deliberate decision to terminate the pregnancy. The court took into account her statement: “In her affidavit, the complainant affirmed that her relationship with petitioner no. 1 was consensual, and she deliberately chose to terminate the pregnancy due to her unmarried status. She stated that she is married to another individual, has a child, and leads a peaceful family life. She has consented to the dismissal of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.”
With this information, the court found it appropriate to dismiss the FIR and ordered the woman to pay ₹25,000 to the Tata Memorial Hospital within fourteen days.
In 2017, the complainant reported that Sandip Patil, the petitioner, had raped her. She also alleged that members of his family compelled her to undergo pregnancy termination without her consent. At the time she met Patil, her previous marriage had not yet been resolved, and she claimed to have filed for divorce. According to the complainant, she entered into a consensual relationship with Patil after he proposed marriage. The woman further claimed that Patil and his family members assaulted her and forced her to terminate her pregnancy once she became pregnant. The incidents occurred in Solapur and Karnataka. The police filed charges against the Patil family and the involved physicians under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The defendants later petitioned the High Court to dismiss the case. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the dispute had been amicably resolved. The complainant submitted an affidavit, appeared in court, and supported her claim. Consequently, the Court dismissed the case, stating, “Even if accepted in their entirety, the FIR and other evidence do not disclose any heinous or grave offense. Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) stated in her affidavit that she is now married with a child and wishes to proceed with her married life, leaving the past behind. In such a situation, continuing with criminal prosecution could jeopardize her family life.”
In court, Yogesh Patil represented the petitioners, Deputy Public Prosecutor Gavand represented the state government, and Pankaj Thakur and Sarfaraj Shaikh represented the complainant.
