1 948APPLN2366.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2366 OF 2025 Amol Gopaldas Rathi And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore - Advocate for Applicants Mr. V. K. Kotecha - APP for the State Mr. C. V. Bodkhe - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants, the learned APP for the State, and the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present Petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0105 of 2025, dated 08.03.2025, registered with Satara Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for quashing all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 1846 of 2025, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. 2 948APPLN2366.2025.odt 3. By order dated 18.08.2026, the parties were relegated to the learned Registrar (Judicial) for the purpose of verification of their identities as well as the terms of settlement arrived at between them. Accordingly, the verification was carried out, and the report regarding the terms of settlement was submitted by the learned Registrar (Judicial). The report clearly states that both parties i.e. the Husband and Wife, were present before the learned Registrar (Judicial) and admitted and accepted the contents of the terms of settlement. They also admitted their respective signatures thereon and stated that they had signed the same voluntarily. Their identities were also duly verified. 4. On perusal of the terms of compromise, it appears that the dispute between the parties arose out of a misunderstanding, which has now been resolved. The parties have decided to withdraw the allegations made against each other. Clause 4 of the Compromise Deed specifically refers to the proceedings pending before this Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in the present Application. The said clause records that Respondent No. 2 has no objection to allowing the present Criminal Application and quashing the criminal proceedings i.e. R.C.C. No. 1846 of 2025, along with the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 0105 of 2025, dated 08.03.2025, registered with Satara Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 3 948APPLN2366.2025.odt 5. The Compromise Deed further records that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have decided to put an end to all disputes between them. Respondent No. 2 [Wife] and Applicant No. 1 [Husband] have also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court. Respondent No. 2 has given her consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and Respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that she does not wish to proceed with the prosecution against the present Applicants, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending against the Applicants. Hence, Criminal Application No. 2366 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘F’. 7. The Application stands disposed of. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 17:55:46