Criminal Application No. 3397 of 2025 · High Court · 2025

C528APPLN3397-25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3397 OF 20251.Aslam s/o Shahanoor KhanAge: 34 years, Occu: LabourR/o Behind Bari Masjit,House No.4-11-24, Lane No.6,Bari Colony, AurangabadHusband2.Shahanoor Khan Birham KhanAge: 75 years, Occu: NilR/o Behind Bari Masjit,House No.4-11-24, Lane No.6,Bari Colony, Aurangabad(Mother-in-law3.Haleema Bee Khan Shahanoor KhanAge: 51 years, Occu: NilR/o House No.8-18-389, Ram Mandir LaneNo.6 Bari Colony, Aurangabad4.Ishrat Umar Khan(Ishrat Begum Shahanoor Khan)Age: 27 years, Occu: LabourR/o House No.8-21-389, Ram Mandir LaneNo.6, Bari Colony, Aurangabad5.Shakera Kadir Khan(Shakera Begum w/o Kadir Patel)R/o House No.8-18-389, Ram Mandir LaneNo.6 Bari Colony, Aurangabad...Applicants(Orig. Accused)6.Jakera Hafiz Khan PathanAge: 43 years, Occu: HousewifeR/o House No.8-21-239, Lane No.1, Near Yasin Masjit, Jaswantpura, Neharunagar, AurangabadVERSUSPage 1 of 12 C528APPLN3397-251.The State of Maharashtra,Through Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad(Chh. Sambhajinagar)2.Shashista w/o Aslam KhanAge: 30 years, Occu: HousewifeR/o Bari Colony, Near Ram Mandir,Aurangabad( Chh. Sambhajinagar)... RespondentsMr. Parmeshwar A. Shendge h/for Mr. Prashant P. Giri, Advocate for the applicantsMs. Neha B. Kamble, APP for the Respondent-StateMr. Sohail Subhedar, Advocate for Respondent No.2CORAM: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 12.09.2025ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) 1. By the present application, the applicants have invokedjurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1974, which is identical to Section 528 of Bhartiya NagrikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023( for short, BNSS, 2023), praying for quashingand setting aside the criminal proceedings bearing Regular CriminalCase No. 2276 of 2004 pending on the file of learned 2nd JudicialMagistrate First Class, Aurangabad (Now Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar),arising out of First Information Report dated 25.04.2024 lodged byRespondent No.2, which is registered as Crime No. 0095 of 2024 withJinsi Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad, for the offences punishableunder Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860.Page 2 of 12 C528APPLN3397-252.The applicants are original Accused, whereas RespondentNo.2 is the original Informant in Crime No. 0095 of 2024 registeredwith the Jinsi Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad, for the offencespunishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IndianPenal Code, 1860. Accused No. 1 is a husband, Accused Nos. 2 and 3are father and mother-in-laws and Accused Nos. 3 to 6 are sisters-in-laws of the Informant.3.Heard at length the learned counsel appearing for theApplicants, learned APP for Respondent No.1/ State and learnedCounsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/informant.4.Having regard to the strenuous submissions canvassed onbehalf both sides, we have gone through the record. It is not in disputethat marriage between Accused No. 1 and Respondent no. 2/ Informantwas solemnized on 24.03.2013 as per Muslim customs and rites. Theparents of the informant provided sufficient dowry and domestic articleson eve of marriage. After the marriage, the Informant cohabited withher husband/accused no. 1 in a joint family. The informant alleged that,she was well treated for 9 months from the date of marriage butsubsequently, she was subjected to cruelty on demand of more dowryand used to beat her. Page 3 of 12 C528APPLN3397-255. On face of record it appears that, on 21.04.2024, theInformant and all Accused persons gathered at the house of NaziraPatel, the informant’s sisters-in-law for celebration of Walima (weddingreception ceremony), wherein Accused no. 1 beat the Informant withwooden long and other accused also assaulted her due to some quarrel.Therefore, the informant lodged the FIR, on the basis of Crime No. 0095of 2024 was registered with the Jinsi Police Station for the offencespunishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IndianPenal Code, 1860. After due investigation, the Investigation Officer filedthe Charge sheet against all the Accused therein, which is registered asRegular Criminal Case No. 2276 of 2024. 6.The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/accusedcanvassed that after registration of above stated crime, theapplicants/accused are already enlarged on pre-arrest bail vide orderdated 4th May, 2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, in CriminalBail Application No. 857 of 2024. So also, due to matrimonial dispute,the Informant had filed proceeding bearing Petition No. E-184 of 2024under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the learned Family Court,Aurangabad, seeking maintenance. Further, Respondent No.2 initiatedthe proceedings under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code bearingCriminal M. A. No. 1152 of 2024 and Criminal M.A. No. 1379 of 2024Page 4 of 12 C528APPLN3397-25under Sections 3 & 4 of Muslim Women Protection of Rights onMarriage Act. However, during pendency of said proceedings, theApplicants/Accused and Respondent No. 2/Informant have entered intocompromise and amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and sincethen the informant has been cohabiting with her husbandapplicant/accused no. 1 and they are enjoying happily married life. Soalso, on 13.06.2025 both the proceedings i.e. Criminal M. A. No. 1152of 2024 and Criminal M.A. No. 1379 of 2024 are disposed of onaccount of settlement. Therefore, the applicants have filed the presentapplication and prayed for quashing and setting aside the criminalproceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 2276 of 2004 pendingon the file of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad onaccount settlement of the matrimonial dispute. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/informant has not disputed about the fact of settlement ofmatrimonial dispute between the applicants/accused and RespondentNo.2/informant. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2/ informanthas not disputed about cohabitation of Respondent No.2 with theapplicant/husband in pursuance of settlement. Hence, he prayed forpassing suitable order. Page 5 of 12 C528APPLN3397-258.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 issubmitted 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 neckof the 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 andwife as well as other members of the family, thepetitioners be allowed to compound the offence undersection 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."Page 6 of 12 C528APPLN3397-259.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 settlementand compound he offence, as noted above while discussing thiscase. On the other hand, in Shambhu Kewat (supra), afterreferring to some other earlier judgments, this Court opined thatcommission of offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code wouldbe crime against the society at large, and not a crime against anindividual only. We find that in most of the cases, this view istaken. Even on first principle, we find that an attempt to take thelife of another person has to be treated as a heinous crime andagainst the society.28. 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 HighCourt should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion ofthe bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely whetherinjuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and thenature of weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that thereis a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307Indian Penal Code, once the evidence to that effect is led andPage 7 of 12 C528APPLN3397-25injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement betweenthe parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facieassessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court formsan opinion that provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code wereunnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept theplea of compounding of the offence based on settlement betweenthe 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 betweenthe parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whetherpossibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds theanswer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case wouldbe a fit case 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 inacquittal, in any case."10. In case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing Page 8 of 12 C528APPLN3397-25of 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 recoveryof the amount payable by the borrower company. The bank alsofiled a complaint against the company, its Managing Director andthe officials of Andhra Bank for diverse offences, namely, Section120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian PenalCode read 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 theManaging Director of the Company was compromised. The suitwas compromised upon the Defendants agreeing to pay theamounts due as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms.Clause 11 of the consent terms read, "agreed that save asaforesaid neither party has any claim against the other andparties do hereby withdraw all the allegations and counter-allegations made against each other". Based on Clause 11 of theconsent terms, the Managing Director of the Company, theAppellant who was accused No. 3 in charge sheet filed by CBI,made application for discharge from the criminal complaint. Thesaid application was rejected by the Special Judge (CBI), GreaterBombay, which came to be challenged before the Bombay HighCourt. The contention before the High Court was that since thesubject matter of the dispute had been settled between theAppellant and the bank, it would be unreasonable to continuewith the criminal proceedings. The High Court rejected theapplication for discharge from the criminal cases. It is from thisorder that the matter reached this Court by way of special leave.The Court having regard to the facts of the case and the earlierdecision of this Court in B.S. Joshi, AIR 2003 SC 1386: (2003) 4SCC 675, set aside the order of the High Court and quashed thecriminal proceedings by consideration of the matter thus:Page 9 of 12 C528APPLN3397-2528. The basic intention of the accused in this case appears tohave been to misrepresent the financial status of the Company,M/s Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order to avail of thecredit facilities to an extent to which the Company was notentitled. In other words, the main intention of the Company andits officers was to cheat the Bank and induce it to part withadditional amounts of credit to which the Company was nototherwise 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 theCompany and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis ofthe compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues ofthe Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appearto have any further claim against the Company. What,however, remains is the fact that certain documents werealleged to have been created by the Appellant herein inorder to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to whichthe Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein hasovertones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. Thequestion which is required to be answered in this case iswhether the power which independently lies with thisCourt to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to thecompromise 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 satisfiedthat this is a fit case where technicality should not beallowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminalPage 10 of 12 C528APPLN3397-25proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of thesame after the compromise arrived at between the partieswould be a futile exercise."11.In case in hand, it is undisputed fact that, a Crime No. 0095 of2024 was registered against the present applicants with the Jinsi PoliceStation for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324,498-A, 504,506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of FIR lodged bythe present Respondent No. 2 out of matrimonial dispute. Not only this,but subsequently, Respondent No. 2/informant again initiated threeproceedings i.e. (i) Petition No. E-184 of 2024 u/s 144 of BNSS,2023seeking maintenance; (ii) Criminal M.A. No. 1152 of 2024 underSection 307 of IPC and (iii) Cri. M.A. No. 1379 of 2024 under Sections3 & 4 of Muslim Women’ Protection of Rights on Marriage Act. Duringpendency of these proceedings, the Applicants/Accused and RespondentNo. 2/Informant have entered into compromise and amicably settledtheir matrimonial dispute. Therefore, on the basis said settlement,above stated three matrimonial cases are disposed of by the concernedCourt vide order dated 13.06.2025 and Respondent No.2/wife hasbeen cohabiting with her husband applicant/accused no. 1 and both ofthem are happily enjoying their married life. However, criminalproceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 2276 of 2004 is pendingon the file of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.Therefore, considering the law laid down in the cases cited supra asPage 11 of 12 C528APPLN3397-25well societal interest between the parties, it will be just and proper toquash and set aside Regular Criminal Case No. 2276 of 2004 pendingon the file of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabadunder Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, so also the charge sheetfiled by the Investigation Officer in Crime No. 0095 of 2024 registeredwith the Jinsi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections323, 324,498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, we proceed topass the following order:ORDERi) Criminal Application stands allowed.ii) The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 2276 of 2004which pending on the file of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Aurangabad arising out of charge sheet filed in CrimeNo. 0095 of 2024 registered with the Jinsi Police Station,District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections323, 324,498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code ishereby quash and set aside. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )JPChavan Page 12 of 12