Judgment 1 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 2017 OF 2025 1) Prakashkumar S/o. Kirtikumar Chaudhari, Aged : 40 years, Occ. Private Job, 2) Kirtikumar S/o. Fuljibhai Chaudhari, Aged : 67 years, Occ. Retired, 3) Kokilaben W/o. Kirtikumar Chaudhari, Aged : 65 years, Occ. Home-Maker, 4) Anuj S/o. Kirtikumar Chaudhari, Aged : 33 years, Occ. Job, All 1 to 4 R/o. 31/5, Dharamnagar Society, Near Welcome Society, Manav Ashram, Visnagar Road, Mehsana, Distt. Mehsana, Gujrat-384001. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Bhadravati, District – Chandrapur. 2) Nisha Prakashkumar Chaudhari, Aged : 37 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Siddharth Palvekar, Bhadranag Ward, Bhadravati, Chandrapur – 442902. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. A. S. Thotange, Advocate for applicants. Ms. H. N. Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Mr. S. D. Umredkar, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ 2026:BHC-NAG:11766-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 04, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.235/2022, dated 15.06.2022, registered with Police Station, Bhadravati, District Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) and consequent proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.64/2024, pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadravati. 3. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Marriage between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 26.11.2012. After marriage, non-applicant No.2 went to cohabit in the house of the applicants. On 15.06.2022, non-applicant No.2/ complainant lodged a complaint against the applicants alleging that applicant No.1 used to abuse her and assault her, whereas applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 also used to taunt her and abuse her. Due to the ill Judgment 3 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt health of her sister, non-applicant No.2 resided at her parental house for about 5 to 6 months. In the meanwhile, she tried to contact applicant No.1. Applicant No.1 threatened non-applicant No.2 that if she comes back, he will kill her. On 06.10.2021, when non-applicant No.2 returned to her matrimonial home, all the applicants abused her and did not allow her to enter into the house. Therefore, she came back to her parental house and lodged the complaint. On her complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants. 4. Non-applicant No.2 has appeared through her counsel. She is present in Court today and has been duly identified by her counsel. She tendered an affidavit across the bar, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the affidavit, it has been contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties out of court. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have mutually decided to part ways. They have also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Non-applicant No.2 has reiterated the contentions of the affidavit. She does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against the applicants. Judgment 4 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt 5. Considering the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute as well as the fact that applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways to lead their future life peacefully, the pending proceedings may become a hindrance in their peaceful life. 6. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held as under : “10. [In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife Judgment 5 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the “negative”. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.” 7. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.235/2022, dated 15.06.2022, registered with Police Station, Bhadravati, District Chandrapur for the Judgment 6 J-APL No.2017.2025.odt offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequent proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.64/2024, pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadravati, are hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants. (iii) The applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) to the account of “Public Welfare Fund” in Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account No.129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Fees of the learned counsel appointed for non-applicant No.2 be quantified and paid as per relevant rules. 8. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 11:20:40