1 apl1297.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1297 OF 2025 1. Raviraj @ Ravi S/o Govind Rathod Aged about 37 years, Occ: Service, 2. Pramilabai W/o Govindrao Rathod Aged 60 years, Occ: Nil 3. Yuvraj S/o Govind Rathod Aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist All R/o At Chilli, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Pranali W/o Ravi Rathod Aged 32 years, Occ: Service, R/o C/o Bapurao Chavan, Dttabardi (Tanda) Tah. & Dist. Nanded. ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms Madhuri Deshkar and Ms Chaitali Bhute, Advocates for applicants. Ms D.I.Charlewar, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Shri Gajanan Asole, Advocates for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 01.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. 2026:BHC-NAG:11484-DB 2 apl1297.25.odt 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.350/2024 registered with Police Station, Umarkhed, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 315, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Charge-sheet filed in Sessions Case No.58/2025 before the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal on account of settlement. 3. The First Information Report indicates that marriage between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2/complainant was performed on 29.05.2019. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter. It is alleged in the FIR that due to matrimonial dispute, the complainant left the company of applicant no.1 and since then, she was residing with her parents and proceedings were filed before the Family Court. However, after the matter was settled, the relationship between applicant no.1 and the complainant resumed. It appears that the complainant lodged the FIR against the applicants alleging that after resuming the relationship, behaviour of applicant no.1 and applicant no.2– mother-in-law was indifferent towards the complainant. They again started abusing and assaulting her on trivial issues. On 02.05.2024, during her pregnancy, the applicants allegedly 3 apl1297.25.odt assaulted the complainant and forcibly administered tablets to her. It is also alleged that she was confined to one room and was subjected to further harassment for a few days. On 10.05.2024, applicant No.1 allegedly assaulted her and abandoned her at Nanded. On the basis of the said allegations, the complainant lodged the FIR against the applicants. 4. This matter was referred for mediation wherein, the matter was amicably settled. Settlement agreement has been executed by applicant no.1 and the complainant whereby, they have decided to resume their relationship. The complainant also agreed to withdraw all the cases pending against the applicants, including the present one. 5. The complainant has appeared through her counsel. She is personally present in the Court today. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered across the bar, the affidavit of the complainant, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. It is contended in the affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled between applicant no.1 and the complainant. The complainant is ready to cohabit with applicant no.1. The complainant further contends in her affidavit that she does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR and the consequential proceedings are quashed. 4 apl1297.25.odt 6. The present FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and the complainant. Both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and have decided to resume their relationship. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings may become a hindrance in leading their peaceful life. 7. In the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court has held as under: “10. 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 5 apl1297.25.odt 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 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.” 8. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to quash the FIR. Hence, the following order is passed: i. The criminal application is allowed. 6 apl1297.25.odt ii. First Information Report bearing Crime No.350/2024 registered with Police Station, Umarkhed, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 315, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Charge-sheet filed in Sessions Case No.58/2025 before the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal against the applicants are hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The application stands disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 19:04:43