IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3815 OF 2025 1 Shailesh Ganpat Gadalwad, Age 36 yrs., Occ. Service, R/o House No.2842, Radhika Nagar, Taroda (Kh), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2 Shivkanta w/o Ganpat Gadalwad, Age 54 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o House No.2842, Radhika Nagar, Taroda (Kh), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 3 Ganpat Jalbaji Gadalwad, Age 61 yrs., Occ. Govt. Service, R/o House No.2842, Radhika Nagar, Taroda (Kh), Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. … Claimants … Versus … 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Bhagyanagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2 Surekha w/o Shailesh Gadalwad, Age 31 yrs., Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o C/o Ashok Narayan Pentewad, B-22, Snehnagar, B & C Colony, Punarvasan Building, Near Government Rest House, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. … Respondents ... 2025:BHC-AUG:28943-DB 2 948_Cri.Appln_3815_2025 Mr. G.P. Shinde, Advocate for applicants Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for respondent No.1 Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025 ORDER : . Though the application filed by present applicants earlier i.e. Criminal Application No.1551 of 2022 came to be rejected by this Court by order dated 22.10.2024, present applicants have filed present application on the ground of settlement. Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Deshmukh appears for respondent No.2 suo motu and files affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2, wherein she is giving consent for quashing of proceedings, so also it is stated that marriage between herself and applicant No.1 has been dissolved by a decree under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, so also the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act has been compromised. 2 The affidavit is sworn before Section Officer of this Court and, therefore, we presume that he has taken the necessary precautions for the identification of informant. 3 948_Cri.Appln_3815_2025 3 Respondent No.2 lodged report dated 31.5.2021 against the applicants, alleging that on 12.07.2020, she got married with applicant No.1 Shailesh as per the Hindu rites and customs. Within 15 days of marriage, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, started ill-treatment over the demand of household articles and cash amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. On 10.08.2020, her husband and mother-in-law, beat her. She was required to take treatment for injuries. On 16.08.2020, she was driven out of the home on the ground that she is not expert in cooking. While she resided with her parents, she acquired skills of cooking and called her husband and mother-in- law to take her back. However, they refused saying that they do not like her. Her sister-in-law was instigating the ill-treatment given to her. On 29.11.2020, a meeting of relatives was arranged. Her husband raised various complaints against her. The in-laws were saying that they wish to divorce her and used bad words against her parents. Hence, no settlement could be arrived. On 15.05.2021, her husband, mother-in-law, relatives of mother-in- law abused and assaulted her. On 21.04.2021, her brother had left her to the matrimonial home. At that time, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in- law beat her and lodged false report dated 22.04.2021 against her brother. On 29.05.2021, while she had been to wash room, her husband, brother-in- law, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other relatives followed and assaulted her. Her husband suffocated her by pressing neck and made an attempt to 4 948_Cri.Appln_3815_2025 kill her. Thereafter, she called her parents. They arrived along with police, took her to police station, Bhagyanagar. At that time, in-laws gave threats to kill her brother. Her mother-in-law removed gold ornaments weighing 50 grams from her bag. 4 Important point to be noted is that in view of settlement the consent appears to have been given as respondent No.2 wants to lead peaceful life hereinafter. There are allegations and on the basis of those allegations this Court had come to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the normal course, if there would have been the compromise between husband and wife, then offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code would have been allowed to be compounded, but, when it comes to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, more precaution is required to be taken. Taking into consideration the allegations and in view of the decision in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines and it is stated that such compromise can be considered and, therefore, we are entertaining the present application. However, while allowing the application we would impose cost of Rs.10,000/- each on the applicants. Hence, following order. 5 948_Cri.Appln_3815_2025 ORDER i) Criminal Application stands allowed. ii) The proceedings in Sessions Case No.266/2021 pending before learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.174/2021 dated 31.05.2021 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos.1) Shailesh Ganpat Gadalwad, 2) Shivkanta w/o Ganpat Gadalwad, and 3) Ganpat Jalbaji Gadalwad. iii) Each of the applicants to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, on or before 17.10.2025, with the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad. iv) Place the matter for compliance on 07.11.2025. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd