19.apl.1333.2025.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1333 OF 2025 1. Shri Nilesh s/o Sajjan Singh, Age : 45 Years, Occupation : Business, 2. Smt. Swapna w/o Nilesh Singh, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Household, Both R/o Plot No.72, Ram Nagar, Nagpur, Police Station, Ambazari. 3. Ms. Dipali w/o Devesh Kumar Verma, (Median Name Dipali D/o Rajendra Singh Verma) Age : 42 Years Occupation : Household, R/o. 3-E-47, Mahavir Nagar, Extension, Dada Wadi, Kota, Rajasthan – 324009. 4. Ms. Sandhya w/o Murlidhar Verma, Age 52 Years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Sarni, District Betul Madhya Pradesh. 5. Ms. Rupali D/o Rajendar Singh Verma, Age : 39 Years, Occupation : Household, R/o. 3-E-47, Mahavir Nagar, Extension, Dada Wadi Kota, Rajasthan - 324009. .... APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Wadi Nagpur. 2. Vaibhav Shekhar Rai, Aged about 46 Years, Occupation : Business, R/o East High Court Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. .... NON-APPLICANTS. 2025:BHC-NAG:10249-DB 19.apl.1333.2025.Judgment.odt (2) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. S. Shukla, Counsel for the applicants. Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. S. K. Bhandarkar, Counsel for the non-applicant No.2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 29/09/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.375/2025 dated 14.06.2025 registered with Police Station Wadi, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who submitted that there was a civil dispute between the parties which resulted into criminal dispute due to some misunderstanding. He submitted that the First Information Report came to be registered by the non-applicant No.1, alleging that the informant entered into an agreement of sale with the applicant Nos.2 to 5 for purchasing of agricultural land as per the agreement of sale dated 20.12.2023. However, despite 19.apl.1333.2025.Judgment.odt (3) executing the above agreement of sale, the applicants are not executing the sale deed in favour of the non-applicant No.2 and trying to sell the property to a third person and therefore, he approached the Police Station and crime was registered. He submitted that considering the allegations levelled in the FIR itself, it appears that at the most, the dispute would cover under the Specific Performance Act and the non-applicant No.2 now entered into a settlement with the present applicants. There is an amicable settlement between the parties and therefore, they be permitted to settle the dispute and the FIR registered against the present applicants be quashed. 5. The parties are present i.e. applicant Nos.1, 2, 4 are present before the Court and 3 and 5 are present through video conferencing. The non-applicant No.2 is also present before the Court through video conferencing. We have verified the contents of the settlement from them, they agreed and accepted the consent of the settlement. 6. 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 High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim have been settled, although the 19.apl.1333.2025.Judgment.odt (4) 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 victim but the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them 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 F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” 7. In view of the above observations, in the present case also, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. At the same time, this Court has to consider that the entire police machinery as well as Court machinery is used by the informant as well as by the applicants to arrive at a settlement and therefore, some costs requires to be imposed on the parties. In view of that, the application deserves to be 19.apl.1333.2025.Judgment.odt (5) allowed subject to the costs of Rs.25,000/- by the applicants and Rs.25,000/- by the non-applicant No.2 and therefore, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.375/2025 dated 14.06.2025 registered with Police Station Wadi, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be quashed subject to the costs of Rs.25,000/- by the applicants and Rs. 25,000/- by the non-applicant No.2. (iii) The costs be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.