Judgment 1 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1711 OF 2026 1) Kanchan Madhav Nagargoje @ Kanchan Narhari Kendre, Aged : 28 years, Occ. Private, R/o. House No.82-1, Umarga Khojan, Po. Hadoli (Br.), Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded – 431714. 2) Vishnukant Bandurao Kendre, Aged : 41 years, Occ. Service, R/o. House No.82-1, Umarga Khojan, Po. Hadoli (Br.), Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded – 431714. 3) Avinash Narhari Kendre, Aged : 34 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. House No.20/886-1. Sahyog Nagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded – 431714. 4) Anil Narhari Kendre, Aged : 28 years, Occ. Service, R/o. House No.82-1, Umarga Khojan, Po. Hadoli (Br.), Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded – 431714. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Sakkardara, Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur (City), District : Nagpur. 2) Madhav Madhukar Nagargoje, Aged : 31 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Plot No.499, Anand-Nagar, behind Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur. …. N ON-APPLICANTS 2026:BHC-NAG:11648 Judgment 2 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt _____________________________________________________________ Mr. Vaishnav G. Ingole, Advocate for applicants. Ms. H. N. Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Mr. I. K. Daudasare, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.98/2026, dated 11.03.2026, registered with Police Station, Sakkardara, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352, 189(2), 189(4) and 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Applicant No.1 is the wife of non-applicant No.2. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.12.2024. On 11.03.2026, non- applicant No.2/complainant lodged a complaint with Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur City alleging that after marriage, applicant No.1 used to quarrel with him. Non-applicant No.2 got to know that applicant No.1 has a love relationship with someone else. Therefore, there used to be frequent quarrels between them. There was a Judgment 3 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt meeting held in the month of December-2025 between the family members of both the parties, where it was decided between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 that they will part ways. It is alleged in the FIR that on 08.03.2026, when non-applicant No.2 was celebrating the birthday along with his friend in his flat, applicant No.1 along with her brothers and their friends came there. They assaulted non- applicant No.2 as a result of which he sustained injuries. They also threatened him for his life. On the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants. 4. Non-applicant No.2 has appeared through his counsel. He is present in Court today and has been duly identified by his counsel. He tendered an affidavit across the bar, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the affidavit, it has been contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties before learned Family Court, Nanded on the terms contained in the Settlement Agreement. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have mutually decided to part ways. Divorce proceedings are pending before learned Family Court, Nanded. Non-applicant No.2 has reiterated the contentions of the affidavit. He does not want to prosecute the applicants and he has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the applicants. Judgment 4 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt 5. 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. 6. 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 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 Judgment 5 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt 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.” 7. 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. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.98/2026, dated 11.03.2026, registered with Police Station, Sakkardara, Nagpur City for the offences Judgment 6 J-APL No.1711.2026.odt punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), 352, 189(2), 189(4) and 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants. (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. 8. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 19:00:17