Judgment 1 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1567 OF 2025 1) Naved Ahmad Khan Aqueel Mohammad Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service, 2) Sohel M. Khan Aqueel Mohammad Khan, Aged about 36 years, Occ.-Service, 3) Alfiya Anjum Sohel Aqueel Mohammad Khan, Aged about 27 years, Occ.-Home Maker, 4) Ishrat Parveen Aqueel Mohammad Khan, Aged about 58 years, Occ.-Home Maker, Applicant No.1-4 common R/o. Noor Nagar, Juni Vasti, In front of Saadik Kirana, Badnera, Tq. Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra. 5) Farha Naaz Shoeb Samiulla, Aged about 39 years, Occ.- Home Maker, 6) Shoaib Sami-Ulla, Aged about 45 years, Occ.-Service, Applicant No.5-6 common R/o. Bada pura Babhali, Daryapur, Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra. 7) Jawed Khan Ubbed Ulla Khan, Aged about 52 years, Occ.-Business, 8) Rani Jawed Khan, Aged about 38 years, Occ.-Home Maker, Applicant No.7-8 common R/o. Almas Colony, Juni Vasti, Badnera, Tq. Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 2026:BHC-NAG:13757-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt 1) State of Maharashtra, Through its Police Station Officer/ In-charge, Police Station Gadge Nagar, District Amravati City, Maharashtra. 2) Seema Anjum Naved Ahmed Taufiq Khan Gaffar Khan, Aged about 26 years, Occ.-Home Maker, R/o. Rahiba Colony, Behind Dharamkata, Gadge Nagar, Amravati, Maharashtra. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rahul Vyawahare, Advocate for applicants. Mr. N. H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Mr. Aniket Rangari, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.586/2025, dated 31.07.2025, registered with Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) and consequent proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.684/2026. Judgment 3 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt 3. The FIR indicates that applicant No.1 is the husband of non-applicant No.2/complainant and applicant Nos.2 to 9 are the relatives of applicant No.1. The marriage of applicant No.1 and non- applicant No.2 was solemnized on 26.05.2025 as per Muslim rituals. On 31.07.2025, non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint against the applicants alleging cruelty as well as harassment at the hands of the applicants for various reasons including not providing adequate dowry. Therefore, on her complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants. 4. During the pendency of the application, the matter was referred to mediation, since the dispute is arising out of matrimonial discord. Both the parties settled their dispute out of the Court and submitted the settlement Agreement before the learned Mediator. The learned Mediator recorded the statements of both the parties which is reflected from the report of the Mediator. In the settlement Agreement, it is mentioned that applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways. As per Muslim Law, divorce has taken place between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2. In the Settlement Agreement, non-applicant No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against the applicants, including the present one. Judgment 4 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt 5. Non-applicant No.2 has appeared through video conferencing and she is duly identified by her counsel. She reiterated the contents of the Settlement Agreement and submitted that she does not want to prosecute the applicants any further and she has no objection if the FIR and consequent chargesheet are quashed against the applicants. 6. The dispute arose out of a matrimonial discord. Now, both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways and their divorce has already taken place as per Muslim Law. In my view, continuation of the proceedings may become a hindrance in their future peaceful life. 7. 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 : “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 Judgment 5 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt 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 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.” 8. 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 and consequent Judgment 6 J-APL No.1567.2025.odt proceedings against the applicants. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.586/2025, dated 31.07.2025, registered with Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequent proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.684/2026, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten 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. (iv) Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent non- applicant No.2 be quantified and paid as per relevant rules. 9. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 18:36:52