ANKUSH KISANRAO YELE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
APPLN/486/2023 · 2026-07-22
Shri R M Joshi
body2023
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 2596 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 2596 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
968-APPLN-486-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 486 OF 2023
1. Ankush Kisanrao Yele (Father-in-law)
2. Kamal W/o Ankushrao Yele (Mother-in-law)
3. Amol S/o Ankushrao Yele (Brother-in-law)
4. Manisha W/o Amol Yele (Wife of Applicant No.4)
5. Sushma W/o Ankushrao Yele (Sister-in-law)
6. Balasaheb Anukshrao Yele VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra
2. Gangadwar W/o Balasaheb Yele ... Mr. A. R. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for Respondent No. 1/State Mr. A. P. Sonpethkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : JULY 22, 2026 P. C. :
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Applicants seeks leave to amend application by adding husband as party Applicant No. 6.
2.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 records no objection for the same.
3. Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
4. Learned Counsels for both sides makes statement that parties have settled the dispute and Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashment of the proceedings as prayed in the application. 2026:BHC-AUG:30362-DB
968-APPLN-486-2023.odt
5.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 makes statement that Respondent No. 2 is personally present int he Court and she records no objection for qushment of the proceedings. She files affidavit. The same is taken on record. 6. Perusal of the application indicates that the Applicants are seeking quashment of proceedings bearing RCC No. 46/2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Georai, District Beed in connection with Crime No. 592/2022 registered with Georai Police Station for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Affidavit filed by the Original Informant/Respondent No. 2 indicates that pursuant to the settlement between the parties, mutual divorce has been obtained by them in Petition No. F-81/2026 filed before Family Court, Beed. Pursuant to the dissolvement of the marriage as per the decree of divorce dated 08.07.2026, Respondent No. 2 does not wish to proceed with the matter. She thus records no objection for allowing the present Application in view of compromise and judgment and decree in marriage Petition. The judgment and decree in marriage Petition indicates that the parties have agreed to withdraw proceeding filed at their instance against each other. 8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the judgment of
968-APPLN-486-2023.odt Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] wherein it is held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498-A can be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below:
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, continuation of further proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘B-3’. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani