Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15257 (BOM)

RUSHIKESH RAM MORE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLN/235/2026 · 2026-10-05

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

31appln235-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 31 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 235 OF 2026 Rushikesh Ram More And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. Wakale Vijay Shivaji, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State Mr. Suraj R. Mantri, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 5th October, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State. 2. By order dated 24.07.2026 passed by this Court in the present proceedings, the parties were directed to remain present before the learned Registrar (Judicial) to undergo verification of their identity as well as compromise terms arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the learned Registrar (Judicial), on 07.10.2026 has produced on record its report along with terms of compromise dated 24.07.2026 signed by both the parties and their respective advocates. 3. Taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties is of matrimonial nature and that the parties have settled among themselves, the present application is taken for quahshment on the ground of settlement. 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:46659 31appln235-26 4. Perused the record and also the terms of compromise executed between the parties. The terms of compromise refers in paragraph no.2 that both the parties are ready and willing to withdraw all the cases against each other including the complaints/litigation which are not mentioned in the compromise terms. Paragraph no.3 also refers that there has been monetary settlement between the parties, wherein the applicant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as permanent alimony to the original informant and have also agreed to return the gold ornaments of the informant. In return, the respondent/informant had agreed not to claim any maintenance in future or not claim any ‘stridhan’ apart from what was received. 5. Taking into consideration the report of the learned Registrar (Judicial) along-with compromise deed dated 24.07.2026, I am inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (a) Criminal Application No. 235 of 2026 stands allowed. (b) First Information Report bearing Crime No 480 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded which resulted in filing of Charge-sheet No.30/2025 dated 20.03.2025 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. (d) No orders as to costs. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 2 of 2