APL No. 1969 of 2025 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
odtORDERi]Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352
- DowryProhibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the followingorder :- 3 20-APL-1969-2025.odtORDERi]Application is allowed.ii]The FIR in connection with Crime No.324/2025registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 85, 115(2),351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and consequent proceeding…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1969 OF 2025MOHAMMAD SHOYEB @ RAJU S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF AKBANI AND OTHERSVrs.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's OrderCoram, appearances, Court's Ordersor directions and Registrar's order---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri R. S. Akbani, Advocate for applicants. Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1-State.CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.DATE : 13/02/2026.
Leave is granted to the applicants to makehusband as party.
Application is for quashing of FIR inconnection with Crime No.324/2025 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 andunder Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequentproceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C.No.177/2025.
During the pendency of this application, applicants and non-applicant No.2 arrived at a settlement. They both are present before the Court and submitted thatnow, they are residing together and there is no grievanceagainst each other. 2 20-APL-1969-2025.odt4.The applicant No.7 husband - MohamadTausif Mohamad Yusuf Akbani and non-applicant No.2both are present before the Court.
The contents of settlement which are narratedby them is verified from them. They disclosed that theyare residing together and they are not having anygrievance against each other.
Considering the dispute is of a matrimonialnature and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab andanother, reported in 2012(10) SCC 303, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that where the HighCourt quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to thefact that the dispute between the offender and the victimhas been settled, although the offences are notcompoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation ofcriminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility andjustice in the case demands that the dispute between theparties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing theends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
In this regard, a specific reference was madeto the offences arising out of matrimony, particularlyrelating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute.
Dispute is of a matrimonial nature and bothhave decided to stay together. In view of that, applicationdeserves to be allowed.
Operative part
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the followingorder :- 3 20-APL-1969-2025.odtORDERi]Application is allowed.ii]The FIR in connection with Crime No.324/2025registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 85, 115(2),351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and consequent proceeding arising out of the samebearing R.C.C. No.177/2025 is hereby quashed and setaside against the present applicants.
Application is disposed of.[JUDGE]Choulwar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: odtORDERi]Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352; DowryProhibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
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.