High Court
Legal Reasoning
CRI-APLN-3162-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3162 OF 20251.Allauddin Sirajuddin Shaikh,Age: 30 Years, Occupation: Labour,R/o.: Police Station Road, Darga bess,Vaijapur, Taluka: Vaijapur, District: Aurangabad.2.Sirajuddin Jainuddin Shaikh,Age: 75 Years, Occupation: Nil,R/o.: Police Station Road, Darga bess,Vaijapur, Taluka: Vaijapur, District: Aurangabad.3.Nafisa Sirajjodin Shaikh (Name as per FIR),Nafis Siraj ShaikhAge: 68 Years, Occupation: Household,R/o.: Police Station Road, Darga bess, Vaijapur,Taluka: Vaijapur, District: Aurangabad.4.Afsana Zahir Shaikh, Age: 45 Years, Occupation: Household,R/o.: Chalisgaon Road, Aurangazeb Colony,Kannad. Taluka: Kannad, District: Aurangabad.5.Saeeda Moinoddin Shaikh, Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Household.R/o.: Darga bess, Vaijapur, Taluka: Vaijapur.District: Aurangabad.6.Raeesa Mohin Shaikh (Name as per FIR),Raeesa Begum Shaikh Mobin Age: 40 Years. Occupation: Household,R/o.: Panchshil Nagar, Chalisgaon,Faluka: Chalisgaon, District: Jalgaon. 1 of 11
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))CRI-APLN-3162-20257.Raheman Sirajuddin Shaikh, Age: 23 Years, Occupation: Labour.R/o.: Police Station Road, Darga bess. Vaijapur.Taluka: Vaijapur, District: Aurangabad.… APPLICANTS (Original Accused Nos.1 to 7)VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Chalisgaon City Police Station, Chalisgaon,Taluka: Chalisgaon, District: Jalgaon.2.Muskan Shaikh Allauddin @ Muskan Mubarak Shaikh,Age: 23 Years, Occupation: Household,R/o.: Police Station Road, Darga bess, Vaijapur,Taluka: Vaijapur, District: Aurangabad....RESPONDENTS(Respondent No.2, Orig. Complainant).…Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. Dhanraj P. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.2 .…CORAM: MANISH PITALE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:20.09.2025ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) :- 1.By the present application, the applicants have invokedthe jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing and setting aside thecriminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No.18 of 2024,pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Chalisgaon, District 2 of 11 (( 3 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025Jalgaon, arising out of First Information Report No.542 of 2023 dated25.11.2023, registered with Chalisgaon City Police Station,Chalisgaon, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, lodged byrespondent No.2, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2.The applicants are the original accused, whereasrespondent No.2 is the original informant in Crime No.0542 of 2023registered with Chalisgaon City Police Station, Taluka Chalisgaon,District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Sections w/s.498-A,323, 504,506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3.For the sake of brevity, the parties to the presentapplication would be referred to in their original capacity. Theaccused No.1 is the husband and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the fatherand mother in laws, accused No.4 to 7 are the sister and brother inlaws of respondent No.2 informant. 4.Heard at length the learned counsel for the applicants,the learned APP and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2informant. 3 of 11 (( 4 ))CRI-APLN-3162-20255.Having regard to the strenuous submissions canvassed onbehalf of both the sides, we have gone through the record. It is not indispute that on 12.10.2021, the marriage of respondent No.2informant was solemnized with applicant No.1 / accused No.1 as perthe Muslim custom and rites. It is alleged that the informant’s parentprovided sufficient dowry and domestic articles on the eve of hermarriage. After marriage, the informant cohabited with her husbandaccused No.1 in the joint family. However, subsequently, she wassubjected to cruelty on demand of more dowry and he used to beather. Lastly, she was mercilessly beaten and driven out of hermatrimonial house on account of demand of dowry. On the basis ofsaid report, Crime No. 0542 of 2023 was registered against thepresent applicants / accused with Chalisgaon City Police Station, forthe offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code.6.After due investigation, the Investigating Officer filed thecharge-sheet against all the applicants / accused herein, which isregistered as Regular Criminal Case No.18 of 2024 and trial ispending before the learned J.M.F.C. Chalisgaon. 4 of 11 (( 5 ))CRI-APLN-3162-20257.The learned counsel appearing for the accused submittedthat all the applicants / accused are enlarged on bail. However,during pendency of trial, the respondent No.2 / informant and theapplicants have entered into a compromise and settled theirmatrimonial dispute. Therefore they prayed for quashing and settingaside of Regular Criminal Case No.18 of 2024 arising out of CrimeNo.0542 of 2023.8.On 04.09.2025, the informant / respondent No.2 filed anaffidavit through her counsel and stated that she and the applicantsaccused have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and she hasresumed the matrimonial relations with her husband / applicant No.1and she does not wish to prosecute the applicants / accused in thesaid crime and they also blessed with a daughter on 23.12.2024. 9.In case of Suresh Nathmal Rathi & Ors. Vs. State ofMaharashtra & Ors., 1991 (2) Mh. L.J. 1106, the Single Bench of thisCourt held in paras 21 as under:“After giving conscious consideration to the case and alsothe facts placed before me for seeking the permission andto direct the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow theparties to compound the offence, no doubt, suchpermission can be granted only under the peculiar andsocial circumstances and considering the facts andcircumstances, it is a peculiar and special case. As it is 5 of 11 (( 6 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025submitted in the applications Exhibits 34 and 35 filedbefore the J.M.F.C. Shegaon and statement made by ShriBhattad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it iscrystal clear that now there is no dispute between theparties and the complainant Smt. Shobha is leading happymarried life. If the permission sought for to compound theoffence punishable under section 498-A of Indian PenalCode, is not considered, there would be a destruction ofthe married life and they would not prolong well in theeyes of the society. If the hanging sword is over the neck ofthe husband as well as the old mother and the brothers,the relations may again become strained and there wouldbe a destruction of the happy life of Smt. Shobha and herhusband. It may be that at one point of time, the husbandand the relations had committed some undescribed Act,but subsequently, the facts reveal that they repent andultimately, all are happy. Under these circumstances, itwould not be desirable to reject the prayer made by thepetitioners and to disturb their happy life. On the contrary,the husband and wife are enjoying the peaceful life. Underthe circumstances and in the interest of the maintenanceof the coordinative relationship between husband and wifeas well as other members of the family, the petitioners beallowed to compound the offence under section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code."10.In case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014)6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-"27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of thisCourt to the effect that offences involved in that case were notoffences against the society. It included charge under Section 307Indian Penal Code as well. However, apart from stating so, there isno detained discussion on this aspect. Moreover, it is the otherfactors which prevailed with the Court to accept the settlement andcompound he offence, as noted above while discussing this case.On the other hand, in Shambhu Kewat (supra), after referring tosome other earlier judgments, this Court opined that commission ofoffence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would be crimeagainst the society at large, and not a crime against an individualonly. We find that in most of the cases, this view is taken. Even onfirst principle, we find that an attempt to take the life of anotherperson has to be treated as a heinous crime and against the society. 6 of 11 (( 7 ))CRI-APLN-3162-202528. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is aserious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the lifeof another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot beoblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is aquarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion andsustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is atendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IndianPenal Code as well.Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates theprovision of Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not, by itself, bea ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code andrefuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are,therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whethercompromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Courtshould go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of thebodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuriesare caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature ofweapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strongpossibility of proving the charge under Section 307 Indian PenalCode, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved,the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On theother hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaidcircumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisionsof Section 307 Indian Penal Code were unnecessary included in thecharge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of theoffence based on settlement between 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 isarrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offencewhen the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may besomewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings/investigation. of course, it would be after looking intothe attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para.Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not beenframed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of theI.O. under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure is also placedbefore the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Courtto go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularlythe medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim.This aspect, however, would be examined along with anotherimportant consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the 7 of 11 (( 8 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justiceto continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibilityof conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer tothis question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fitcase for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to thecompromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in suchcases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out thecriminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal,in any case."11. In case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashingof the case in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties andobserved in para 6 as follows:-6. In Nikhil Merchant AIR 2009 SC 428, a company, M/s.Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai was granted financialassistance 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, it 8 of 11 (( 9 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025would be unreasonable to continue with the criminalproceedings. The High Court rejected the application fordischarge from the criminal cases. It is from this order that thematter reached this Court by way of special leave. The Courthaving regard to the facts of the case and the earlier decision ofthis Court in B.S. Joshi, AIR 2003 SC 1386: (2003) 4 SCC 675, setaside the order of the High Court and quashed the criminalproceedings by consideration of the matter thus:28. The basic intention of the accused in this case appears to havebeen to misrepresent the financial status of the Company, M/sNeemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order to avail of the creditfacilities to an extent to which the Company was not entitled. Inother words, the main intention of the Company and its officerswas to cheat the Bank and induce it to part with additionalamounts of credit to which the Company was not otherwiseentitled.29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offenceof cheating punishable Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, thesame has been made compoundable under Sub-section (2) ofSection 320 Code of Criminal Procedure with the leave of thecourt. of course, forgery has not been included as one of thecompoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principleenunciated in B.S. Joshi case becomes relevant.30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company andthe Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromisearrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have beencleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claimagainst the Company. What, however, remains is the fact thatcertain documents were alleged to have been created by theAppellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond thelimit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involvedherein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets.The question which is required to be answered in this case iswhether the power which independently lies with this Court toquash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromisearrived at, should at all be exercised?31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove andkeeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case andthe compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank asalso Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by theBank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality 9 of 11 (( 10 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of thecriminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of thesame after the compromise arrived at between the parties wouldbe a futile exercise."12.In case in hand, it is undisputed fact that Crime No.0542of 2023 registered against the present applicants / accused withChalisgaon Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on thebasis of F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.2 out of matrimonial dispute.However, during pendency of trial in the said crime, the applicants /accused and respondent No.2 informant, have entered intocompromise and amicably settled their matrimonial dispute. As ontoday, respondent No.2 / informant resumed the matrimonialrelations with her husband applicant No.1 on the basis of amicablesettlement of matrimonial dispute and both are happily enjoying theirmarried life. However, criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.18 of2024 is pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Chalisgaon. Therefore,considering the law laid down in the cases cited supra, as well associetal interest between the parties, it will be just and proper toquash and set aside the R.C.C. No.18 of 2024, pending on the file oflearned J.M.F.C. Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the 10 of 11 (( 11 ))CRI-APLN-3162-2025Indian Penal Code, as well as charge-sheet filed by the InvestigatingOfficer in Crime No.0542 of 2023 registered with Chalisgaon PoliceStation for the said offences. Accordingly, we proceed to pass thefollowing order:- O R D E R(i) The present Criminal Application is allowed.(ii)The proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.14 of 2024 pending onthe file of the learned J.M.F.C., Chalisgaon, DistrictJalgaon, arising out of the charge-sheet filed in CrimeNo.0542 of 2023, registered with Chalisgaon PoliceStation, District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]SMS 11 of 11