High Court
Legal Reasoning
528APPLN2477-25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2477 OF 20251. Kiran s/o Namdeo DesaiAge 49 years, Occu: Agri.2.Burnakavau w/o Namdeo DesaiAge 73 years, Occu: Household3.Manoj s/o Namdeo DesaiAge 45 years, Occu: Agri.4.Shital w/o Manoj DesaiAge 38 years, Occu: Household5.Pranav s/o Manoj DesaiAge: 22 years, Occu: StudentAll R/o R/o Narlibag, SoegaonTq. Soegaon Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar...Applicants(Orig. Accused)VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Investigating Officer,Phulambri Police Station,District Chh. Sambhajinagar2.Rupali Kiran DesaiAge 40 years, Occu: HouseholdR/o PokhariTq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar... RespondentsMr. Adil A. Shaikh h/for Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for the applicantsMr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent-StateMr. K. A. Pathade, Advocate for Respondent No.2CORAM: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 12.09.2025ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) Page 1 of 10 528APPLN2477-251. Present application has been filed under Section 582 of theBhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.0260/2025 dated 20.05.2025 registeredwith Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar, for the offencepunishable under Sections 85,115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) ofBhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023.2.Applicant No.1 is husband of Respondent No.2 Rupali- originalcomplainant/informant. Applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, Applicant No.3 isbrother-in-law, Applicant No.4 is sister-in-law and Applicant No.5 isnephew of the informant. 3. Respondent No.2/informant lodged first information reportagainst the present applicants on 20.05.2025 alleging that she was marriedto applicant No. 1 on 05.05.2007 and started living with her husband ather matrimonial home. She was treated well by applicants initially forsome days. It is alleged that subsequently, the applicants started torturingand ill-treating the complainant on trivial issues and also raisedsuspicion on her character. They asked the complainant to bring Rs.1,50,000/-, from her parents for business purpose and in pursuance to thedemand, the applicants started ill-treating the complainant. They used tobeat her and harass her physically and mentally. With these allegations,Page 2 of 10 528APPLN2477-25she lodged complaint and the offence as referred above came to beregistered against the applicants.4. Heard Mr. Adil. A. Shaikh learned counsel for the applicants, MrA. R. Kale, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr. K. A. Pathade,learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant.5.The learned counsel for the respective parties have stated thatduring pendency of the application, the parties have amicably settledtheir dispute and have arrived at a compromise through the process ofprivate negotiations. The compromise pursis containing the terms ofsettlement, has been produced on record. Terms of compromise have beengot verified through Registrar (Judicial) and learned Registrar (Judicial)has submitted his report dated 26.08.2025. Terms of compromise read asthus:"Above mentioned applicants and the respondent no 2/Original complainant most respectfully submit as under:1) That, the applicants had filed criminal application forquashing of FIR bearing Crime no. Crime No. 0260/2025dated 20.05.2025 registered in Phulambri Police Station, forthe offence punishable u/s. 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2),351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.2) That, the dispute between the parties has arisen out ofmatrimonial dispute between applicant no. 1/ husband andrespondent no. 2/ wife. Now, they have settled themisunderstanding between them and are living together inthe same house.Page 3 of 10 528APPLN2477-253) That, respondent no. 2/ wife have cohabited with theapplicant no. 1/ husband. Therefore, the applicants andrespondent no.2 don't want to prosecute the matter further.4) That, respondent no. 2/wife has no objection to allow thecriminal application and quashed the FIR bearing Crime No.0260/2025 dated 20.05.2025 registered in Phulambri PoliceStation, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.5) That the applicants and respondent no. 2 have enteredinto the compromise out of their own will and desire andthe applicants and the respondent no. 2 have arrived at anamicable settlement.6) That the contents of this document are read over andexplained to applicants and respondent no. 2/originalcomplainant in vernacular language and the applicants andrespondent no. 2/original complainant understands thecontents of this document.7) That in view of the compromise the criminal applicationmay kindly be disposed off by appropriate orders."6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/informant has not disputed about the fact of settlement of matrimonialdispute between the applicants/accused and Respondent No.2/informant.In view of the compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants submitsthat the application be allowed. The counsel submits that compounding ispermissible in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the caseof Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC303. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in thecase of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another V/s. The State of MadhyaPradhesh and Another; (2021) 17 SCC 802. Page 4 of 10
Legal Reasoning
528APPLN2477-257. In case of Suresh Nathmal Rathi & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra& Ors., 1991 (2) Mh. L.J. 1106, the Single Bench of this Court held inparas 21 as under:“After giving conscious consideration to the case and also thefacts placed before me for seeking the permission and todirect the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow the partiesto compound the offence, no doubt, such permission can begranted only under the peculiar and social circumstances andconsidering the facts and circumstances, it is a peculiar andspecial case. As it is submitted in the applications Exhibits 34and 35 filed before the J.M.F.C. Shegaon and statement madeby Shri Bhattad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it iscrystal clear that now there is no dispute between the partiesand the complainant Smt. Shobha is leading happy marriedlife. If the permission sought for to compound the offencepunishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, is notconsidered, there would be a destruction of the married lifeand they would not prolong well in the eyes of the society. Ifthe hanging sword is over the neck of the husband as well asthe old mother and the brothers, the relations may againbecome strained and there would be a destruction of thehappy life of Smt. Shobha and her husband. It may be that atone point of time, the husband and the relations hadcommitted some undescribed Act, but subsequently, the factsreveal that they repent and ultimately, all are happy. Underthese circumstances, it would not be desirable to reject theprayer made by the petitioners and to disturb their happy life.On the contrary, the husband and wife are enjoying thepeaceful life. Under the circumstances and in the interest ofthe maintenance of the coordinative relationship betweenhusband and wife as well as other members of the family, thepetitioners be allowed to compound the offence undersection 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."Page 5 of 10 528APPLN2477-258.In case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-"27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of this Courtto the effect that offences involved in that case were not offencesagainst the society. It included charge under Section 307 Indian PenalCode as well. However, apart from stating so, there is no detaineddiscussion on this aspect. Moreover, it is the other factors whichprevailed with the Court to accept the settlement and compound heoffence, as noted above while discussing this case. On the other hand,in Shambhu Kewat (supra), after referring to some other earlierjudgments, this Court opined that commission of offence underSection 307 Indian Penal Code would be crime against the society atlarge, and not a crime against an individual only. We find that in mostof the cases, this view is taken. Even on first principle, we find that anattempt to take the life of another person has to be treated as aheinous crime and against the society.28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a seriousoffence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of anotherperson/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hardrealities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between theparties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury byeither or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of anoffence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as well.Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates theprovision of Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not, by itself, be aground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuseto accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of theopinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in suchcases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by thenature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injurieswere inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at thevital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc.On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of provingthe charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, once the evidence tothat effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not acceptsettlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis ofprima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the HighPage 6 of 10 528APPLN2477-25Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 Indian PenalCode were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court canaccept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlementbetween the parties.29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing ofsettlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived atimmediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matteris still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal inaccepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation.of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstancesas narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submittedbut the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise itsdiscretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above,since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Code of CriminalProcedure is also placed before the Court it would become thebounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidencecollected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc.sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examinedalong with another important consideration, namely, in view ofsettlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contraryto interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings andwhether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Courtfinds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a casewould be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval tothe compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in suchcases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminalproceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in anycase."9. In case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and observed in para 6 as follows:-6. In Nikhil Merchant AIR 2009 SC 428, a company, M/s.Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai was granted financialPage 7 of 10 528APPLN2477-25assistance by Andhra Bank under various facilities. On account ofdefault in repayment of loans, the bank filed a suit for recovery ofthe amount payable by the borrower company. The bank also fileda complaint against the company, its Managing Director and theofficials of Andhra Bank for diverse offences, namely, Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Coderead with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The suit forrecovery filed by the bank against the company and the ManagingDirector of the Company was compromised. The suit wascompromised upon the Defendants agreeing to pay the amountsdue as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms. Clause11 of the consent terms read, "agreed that save as aforesaidneither party has any claim against the other and parties dohereby withdraw all the allegations and counter-allegations madeagainst each other". Based on Clause 11 of the consent terms, theManaging Director of the Company, the Appellant who wasaccused No. 3 in charge sheet filed by CBI, made application fordischarge from the criminal complaint. The said application wasrejected by the Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, which cameto be challenged before the Bombay High Court. The contentionbefore the High Court was that since the subject matter of thedispute had been settled between the Appellant and the bank, itwould be unreasonable to continue with the criminal proceedings.The High Court rejected the application for discharge from thecriminal cases. It is from this order that the matter reached thisCourt by way of special leave. The Court having regard to thefacts of the case and the earlier decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi, AIR 2003 SC 1386: (2003) 4 SCC 675, set aside the orderof the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings byconsideration of the matter thus: 28. The basic intention of the accused in this case appearsto have been to misrepresent the financial status of theCompany, M/s Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in orderto avail of the credit facilities to an extent to which theCompany was not entitled. In other words, the mainintention of the Company and its officers was to cheat thePage 8 of 10 528APPLN2477-25Bank and induce it to part with additional amounts of creditto which the Company was not otherwise entitled. 29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of anoffence of cheating punishable Under Section 420 IndianPenal Code, the same has been made compoundable underSub-section (2) of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedurewith the leave of the court. of course, forgery has not beenincluded as one of the compoundable offences, but it is insuch cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi casebecomes relevant. 30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Companyand the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of thecompromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of theBank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear tohave any further claim against the Company. What, however,remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged tohave been created by the Appellant herein in order to availof credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Companywas entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of acivil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question whichis required to be answered in this case is whether the powerwhich independently lies with this Court to quash thecriminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at,should at all be exercised? 31. On an overall view of the facts as indicatedhereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Courtin B.S. Joshi case and the compromise arrived at betweenthe Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consentterms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied thatthis is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed tostand in the way in the quashing of the criminalproceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the sameafter the compromise arrived at between the parties wouldbe a futile exercise."Page 9 of 10 528APPLN2477-2510. From the terms of compromise, it appears that the parties havesettled the dispute amicably and have decided to set at rest the presentcriminal proceeding. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the casescited supra as well societal interest between the parties, in order to securethe ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of process of law, it will be justand proper to quash and set aside the F.I.R. Hence, the following order: ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0260/2025, dated20.05.2025, registered with Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Chh.Sambhajinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 85,115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023is hereby quashed and set aside as against all the applicants.( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )JPChavan Page 10 of 10