962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1144 OF 2025 1. Manish s/o Ganesh Upadhyay, Aged : 38 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o 44, Ganesh Colony, Shilangan Road, Near Brahma Kumaris, Amravati, Maharashtra .... APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Station Officer, Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. 2. Sau. Shraddha @ Bhavna Manish Upadhyay, Age : 34 Years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o C/o Nareshkumar Shival, Parnkuti, Devraobaba Chal, Rajput Pura, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. .... NON-APPLICANTS. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.724 OF 2024 1. Smt. Savita w/o Ganesh Upadhyay Aged : 58 Years, Occupation: Major, [mother-in-law] 2. Ganesh s/o Shankarlal Upadhyay Aged : 63 Years, Occupation : Retired [father-in-law] Both 1 and 2 R/o Flat No. K- 204, Milestone, Jahangirabad, Near Pyramid Township Surat, Gujrat – 395005. 3. Sau. Rashmi w/o Sanket Sharma, Age : 34 Years, Occupation Private, [sister-in-law] 4. Sanketkumar s/o Lakshmikant Sharma Age : 39 Years, Occupation : Marketing, [brother-in-law] Btoh 3 and 4 R/o. Near Mahalaxmi Mandir, Anand Mahal Road, Adjaat, Surat, Gujrat. .... APPLICANTS 2025:BHC-NAG:10494-DB 962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (2) // VERSUS // 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Station Officer, Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. 2. Sau. Shraddha @ Bhavna Manish Upadhyay, Age : 32 Years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o C/o Nareshkumar Shival, Parnkuti, Devraobaba Chal, Rajput Pura, Akola, Taluka and District Akola. .... NON-APPLICANTS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N. S. Jadhav, Counsel for the applicants in both applications. Ms. Sneha Dhote APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. Gourav Khond, Counsel for the non-applicant No.2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 30/09/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Both these applications are filed by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.201/2023 registered with Police Station City Kotwali, Akola, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (3) 4. The applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.1144/2025 is the husband of the informant, whereas the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.724/2024 are the in-laws, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant. 5. The crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged by the informant on an allegation that her marriage with the applicant Manish was performed on 19.01.2013. After marriage, she resumed the cohabitation, but she was ill-treated by all the applicants by suspecting her character and by demanding unlawful demands. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants. During the pendency of this application, the applicant Manish and the informant arrived at a settlement and decided to dissolve the marriage, accordingly, they have filed a petition bearing No.141/2024 before the Family Court, Akola. The decree of dissolution of marriage is already passed by the Family Court, Akola. In view of that, the applicant prayed for quashing of the First Information Report. 6. The informant Sau. Shraddha @ Bhavna Manish Upadhyay is present before the Court. The contents of the settlement are verified from her, the applicant Manish is also present through video conferencing. He has also accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement. 962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (4) 7. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who submitted that in view of the settlement, the FIR registered against the present applicants deserves to be quashed. 8. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR as well as the settlement terms it reveals that being a matrimonial matter both parties have already settled the dispute and in view of settlement, they have already obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage. So, no purpose will be served by forcing them to face the trial. In view of that and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard a specific reference was made to offences arising out of arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them 962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (5) amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 9. In Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein it is observed that when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved. 10. In the light of the above observations both the applications deserve to be allowed. However, considering the entire police machinery was set in motion on the basis of the complaint lodged by the informant. Both the applications deserve to be allowed subject to the costs of Rs.20,000/- by the applicants and Rs.20,000/- by the non-applicant No.2. In view of that, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The Criminal Application (APL) No.1144/ 2025 and Criminal Application (APL) No.724/2024, are allowed. 962.apl.1144.& 724.2024.Judgment.odt (6) (ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.201/2023 registered with Police Station City Kotwali, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed, to the extent of present applicants, subject to the costs of Rs.20,000/- [Rs. Twenty Thousand] by the applicants and Rs.20,000/- [Rs. Twenty Thousand] by the non-applicant No.2. (iii) The costs be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur. (iv) The compliance be reported to this Court. The applications are disposed of in the above said terms. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.