Shankar Bhagwan Dongre v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. As parties have resolved their disputes way back in 2019, in my view, the present Criminal Application deserves to be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr., (2011)…
Judgment
Mr. Chetan S. Damse with Mr. Omkar S. Banbe, Advocates for the Applicants. Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra. Mr. Manoj Kondekar with Ms. Farzana Khan, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 23RD JANUARY 2026. P.C. :
The present Criminal Application seeks the following relief :
(a). This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside FIR being C.R. No.I-2 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered with Yeola Taluka Police Station at the instance of Respondent no.2 (Original Complainant).
On 4th January 2019, the elder son of Respondent no.2 was assaulted by Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT 17:57:34 +0530 Applicant no.10 in school due to a misunderstanding. On 5 th January 2019, the quarrel took place between the parties and Respondent no.2 filed the impugned First Information Report with Yeola Taluka Police Station, Nashik. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged as counterblast to a Non-Cognizable complaint dated 5th January 2019 registered by one of the Applicants against Respondent no.2.
The parties have since then settled their disputes amicably. Respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 15th January 2019 stating that he does not wish to continue the proceedings arising out of the FIR and all issues have been resolved amicably. The consent was recorded by this Court by its order dated 4 th March 2019 and the appearance of the parties was also dispensed with on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, although attempts were made to list the matter on several occasions, this matter could not be heard.
Ms. Bajoria, learned APP informs the Court that there are criminal antecedents against Applicant nos.1 and 5. As against Applicant no.1, four FIRs are registered between 2014 and 2019 as well as there are four NCs registered against the Applicant no.1. As against Applicant no.5, two FIRs are registered between 2018 and 2019 including the present FIR.
As parties have resolved their disputes way back in 2019, in my view, the present Criminal Application deserves to be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr., (2011) 10 Dixit SCC 705 wherein it was reiterated that the Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice especially in cases where the disputes are of private nature and the complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the prosecution. The parties have resolved their misunderstandings and no fruitful purpose will be achieved in continuing the present prosecution. In view of the above, First Information Report bearing C.R. No.I-2 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] Dixit
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jan 2026. The bench was GAUTAM A ANKHAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.