Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, on December 24, 2025, dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate accepting a B-Summary report and closing the investigation into an FIR filed against Sajjan Jindal. The petition, filed by the complainant (referred to as the petitioner in the judgment), was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad.
The petitioner had challenged the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order dated April 24, 2024, which accepted the B-Summary report filed by the Inspector of Police (Crime), BKC Police Station, in relation to FIR No. 764 of 2023 registered under Sections 354, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The writ petition sought to set aside the order, reopen the investigation, and transfer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigating Team under the monitoring of the High Court.
The FIR, lodged on December 13, 2023, detailed the petitioner’s acquaintance with the accused, Sajjan Jindal, in October 2021 and their subsequent meetings. The petitioner alleged that the accused promised her a life together outside India despite his marital constraints. A key incident narrated in the FIR was that on January 24, 2022, the accused “had oral sex with her” in an office bathroom.
However, while accepting the B-Summary report, the Metropolitan Magistrate took note of the Investigating Officer’s findings, including that the accused was not present at the locations mentioned in the FIR on the relevant dates and did not visit Hotel Taj Lands End on December 24, 2021. Significantly, the court also considered an affidavit filed by the petitioner herself, wherein she stated that she was undergoing “severe mental trauma to me and my aged parents” due to her and her parents’ arrest and 42-day detention in connection with a separate allegedly false case (C.R. No. 90 of 2024) registered at Ibrahimpatnam Police Station.
In the affidavit, the petitioner concluded by stating:
“Under these circumstances, I have decided that I am not, in a mental frame of mind, to contest this case and carry it any further… I pray that Your Honour be pleased to pass appropriate orders for closure of the above case.”
The Magistrate’s order recorded:
“Thus, in short, the informant has no objection to grant B-Summary as prayed. Hence, considering all the above aspects, B-Summary is granted.”
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that the petitioner was “a multi-talented young woman aged about 32 years” and highly educated. The Court noted that when the petitioner consented to a relationship, “she did so having fully understood the marital status and compulsions of the accused person.” The judgment further remarked on the delay in filing the complaint, stating:
“She kept quiet and remained silent for more than thirteen months before she made a complaint at the BKC Police Station on 16th January 2023. The WhatsApp chats and the photographs produced on record by the petitioner clearly indicate that she was in a happy relationship with the accused person for quite some time. The volume of such chats, the contents therein, and the photographs on record reflect their intimacy.”
On the allegation of sexual assault based on a promise to marry, the Court relied on settled legal precedents and held that “a promise to marry at a future uncertain date may not amount to deceit or a misconception of fact.” The Court further observed, with reference to the petitioner’s conduct:
“This is corroborated by a contemporaneous fact that she did not take any positive action in protest.”
Ultimately, the Bench held:
“Having considered the submissions and after perusing the documents on record, we have formed an opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the judgments relied upon by her are of no avail to her.”
Case Details
Case Title: XYZ v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57710-DB, Judg.-CRWP.3701.2025.doc
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
Reserved on: 12 December 2025
Pronounced on: 24 December 2025
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Arote
Advocate for the State: Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, I/c Public Prosecutor
Other Appearance: Mr. Rizwan Marchent (Advocate for the informant before the Metropolitan Magistrate)
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
