1 apl2326.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.2326 OF 2026 1. Chanchal s/o Govind Kapoor Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service, 2. Govind s/o Lalchand Kapoor Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, 3. Reshma Govind Kapoor Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household All Applicant nos.1 to 3 R/o Sindhu Nagar, Near Shaddani Darbar, Amravati – 444 606. 4. Barkha D/o Govind Kapoor (Barkha W/o Lavish Soni) Aged about 31 years, Occ: Service R/o Station Road, Shivaradhey Colony, Ashta, Sehore (M.P.) - 466001. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Jaripatka Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur. 2. Mahima W/o Chanchal Kapoor, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Household, R/o C/o Jagdish Manglani, Plot No.358, Building No.30, In front of Shashikant Kirana Stores, Ahuja Nagar, Bhim Chowk, Jaripatka, Nagpur. ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.S. Malode, Advocate for applicants. Ms H.N. Prabhu, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Ms Neerja Chaubey, Advocates for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 29.09.2026 2026:BHC-NAG:12975 2 apl2326.26.odt ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.56/2022 registered with Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent Charge-sheet filed in Regular Criminal Case No.1584/2022 pending before the 22nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur 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 06.12.2020. Thereafter, non-applicant no.2 went to cohabit with applicant no.1. On 30.08.2021, applicant no.1 threatened non-applicant no.2 that he will circulate videos of her father stating that he is in huge debt. He taunted the complainant regarding her inability to bear a child as well as her inability to bring money from her parental home. There are also allegations against applicant no.1 of assault by means of fist blows. On 31.08.2021, applicant no.1 dropped non-applicant no.2 at her parental home. Therefore, on the complaint of non-applicant 3 apl2326.26.odt no.2, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant no.2 tendered across the Bar the vakalatnama, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. Non-applicant no.2 is present in the Court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel. Non-applicant no.2 has already filed her affidavit on record. It is contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Now applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 have started residing together as husband-wife. Non-applicant no.2 further contends in her affidavit that she does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR and the consequent proceedings are quashed. 5. 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 started residing together. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings may become a hindrance in their future peaceful life. 6. In the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court has 4 apl2326.26.odt 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 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 5 apl2326.26.odt 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.” 7. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings. Hence, the following order is passed: i. The criminal application is allowed. ii. First Information Report bearing Crime No.56/2022 registered with Police Station, Jaripatka, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent Charge-sheet filed in Regular Criminal Case No.1584/2022 pending before the 22nd 6 apl2326.26.odt Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur 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: 30/09/2026 18:25:10