Judgment 1 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1026 OF 2023 1) Kapil Suryakant Dhote, (Husband of R.-2) Aged about 35 years, Occ. Self-owned, 2) Suryakant Kashiramji Dhote, (Father-in-law of R.-2) Aged about 64 years, Occ. Private, 3) Sau. Vanita Suryakant Dhote, (Mother-in-law of R.-2) Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household, All R/o. Sahkar Nagar, Gaurakshan Road, Akola, District : Akola. 4) Mrs. Yogini Sagar Raut, (Sister-in-law of R.-2) Aged about 37 years, R/o. Kothrud, Pune. 5) Sagar Rameshrao Raut, (Brother-in-law of R.-2) Aged about 39 years, Occ. Private, R/o. Kothrud, Pune. 6) Ankur Arvind Musade, (Business Partner of Appln.-1) Aged about 37 years, Occ. Private, R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Chandrapur. 7) Hemant Trambakarao Dhange (Business Partner of Appln.-1) Aged about 36 yeas, R/o. Mulund, Mumbai. 8) Rakhi Dhepe, (Friend) Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private, R/o. Besa, Nagpur. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through P. S. O. Khadan, Tah. & District : Akola. Name of Applicant Nos.2 & 3 are corrected as per Court’s order dt.16.09.2026 2026:BHC-NAG:12614-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt 2) Mrs. Priti Kapil Dhote, Aged about 35 years, Occ. : Private, R/o. C/o. Shriram Apartment, Malkapur, Akola. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Ms. Nazia Pathan, Advocate for applicants. Mr. M. J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Mr. Nikhil Parwani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. On oral motion of the learned counsel for the applicants, permission to correct the name of applicant Nos.2 and 3 is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.136/2023, dated 04.04.2023, registered with Police Station, Khadan, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). 4. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, applicant No.4 is the sister- Judgment 3 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt in-law and applicant No.5 is the brother-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant whereas, applicant Nos.6 and 7 are the business partners and applicant No.8 is the friend of applicant No.1. Marriage between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 28.12.2021. After marriage, non-applicant No.2 went to cohabit at her matrimonial house and resided with applicant Nos.1 to 5. Applicant No.1 used to quarrel with non-applicant No.2 and assault her. Applicant No.1 was allegedly having illicit relations with three to four girls. When this fact was informed by non-applicant No.2 to applicant Nos.2 and 3, they asked her to keep mum and assaulted her. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 asked non-applicant No.2 to bring money from her parental house. It is also the case of non-applicant No.2 that applicant Nos.4 and 5 pressurized her and harassed her physically and mentally. Applicant Nos.6, 7 and 8 also harassed non-applicant No.2 physically and mentally. On the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants. 5. The present application is filed by the applicants for quashing of the FIR. It is contended that now the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court. Applicant No.1 and non- applicant No.2 have tendered their affidavits across the bar, which are Judgment 4 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt taken on record and marked as “X” and “X1” for identification. Perusal the affidavit of non-applicant No.2 reveals that she has contended that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the present applicants. 6. Non-applicant No.2 is present in the Court today. She reiterated the contents of the affidavit. Non-applicant No.2 submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court and now she does not want to prosecute the present applicants. She also has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the present applicants. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have mutually decided to part ways. They have also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Akola. 7. Considering the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute as well as the fact that applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways to lead their future life peacefully, the pending proceedings may become a hindrance in their peaceful life. 8. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held as under : Judgment 5 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt “10. [In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] 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 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 Judgment 6 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt 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.” 9. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR against the present applicants. 10. As regards accused No.9-Neha Gawande, there are vague and omnibus allegations made against her in the FIR regarding abuse and threats. Non-applicant No.2 has not given any details with regard to the date, time and place of occurrence of these allegations. That apart, Section 498-A of the IPC will not be attracted against accused No.9 since she is a friend of applicant No.1 and not a relative as contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC. Though, she has not filed any application, as the allegations cannot be sustained against accused No.9-Neha Gawande, the FIR is required to be quashed against her as well. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.136/2023, dated 04.04.2023, registered with Police Station, Khadan, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Judgment 7 J-APL No.1026.2023.odt of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) to the account of “Public Welfare Fund” in Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account No.129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. 11. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 18:34:24