Judgment 1 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 2161 OF 2026 1) Pranav S/o. Ravishankar Bawankar, Aged : 32 years, Occ. Business, 2) Ravishankar S/o. Namdeorao Bawankar, Aged : 62 years, Occ. Retired, 3) Anita W/o. Ravishankar Bawankar, Aged : 53 years, Occ. Housewife, 4) Kalyani D/o. Ravishankar Bawankar, Aged : 29 years, Occ. Advocate, All the Applicants R/o. Plot No.58, Bhagwan Nagar Bank Colony, Near Bante Super Market, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. : Nagpur, Maharashtra 440027. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through P. S. Ajni, Nagpur Tah. & Dist. : Nagpur. 2) Sonali W/o. Pranav Bawankar @ Sonali D/o. Digambar Choudhari, Aged : 32 years, Occ. : Practicing Advocate, R/o. Near Panchayat Samiti Parisar, Sulezari, Po.+Tal. Nagbhid, District : Chandrapur. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Ms. Ragini Karni Swami, Advocate for applicants. Ms. H. N. Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Ms. Sonali D. Choudhari, (Mrs.Sonali Pranav Bawankar) Advocate, non-applicant No.2-in-person. _____________________________________________________________ 2026:BHC-NAG:11960 Judgment 2 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Issue notice to the non-applicants. 2. Learned Additional Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant No.1/State. Non-applicant No.2 who appears in-person is present in the Court. 3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.645/2024, dated 06.12.2024, registered with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 109, 115(2), 74, 75(1), 75(2), 351(2) and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”), Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Trial Case No.137/2026, pending before District Judge-6 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Judgment 3 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt 5. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Marriage between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 29.11.2023. On 06.12.2024, non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint with Police Station, Ajni alleging that after marriage, there was an altercation between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 on account of inadequate dowry received in the marriage ceremony. Applicant No.1 taunted and tortured her. Applicant No.1 also assaulted and abused her. In December 2023, all the applicants abused the parents of non-applicant No.2 on account of not bringing adequate dowry as a result of which, the life of non-applicant No.2 became miserable. On 24.12.2023, applicant No.1 caught the hand of non-applicant No.2 and slapped on her cheeks. There are also allegations of unnatural sex by applicant No.1. On 09.01.2024, applicant No.3 asked non-applicant No.2 to stop practicing advocacy and she was also abused on that count. Applicant No.1 and applicant No.4 also abused non-applicant No.2 frequently. On 10.01.2024, applicant No.3-mother-in-law asked non-applicant No.2 to bring the amount of Rs.50 lakhs from her parents’ house. On 18.01.2024, applicant No.1 assaulted non-applicant No.2 mercilessly for trivial reasons. There are various other allegations against all the applicants Judgment 4 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt of misbehaviour with non-applicant No.2. There are also allegations against applicant No.2-father-in-law that he outraged the modesty of non-applicant No.2. On the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants. 6. The present application is filed by the applicants for quashing of the FIR and consequent chargesheet on account of settlement between the parties. Non-applicant No.2 has appeared in the Court as party-in-person. She 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 out of court. Applicant No.1 and non- applicant No.2 have mutually decided to part ways. They have also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Nagpur. The learned Family Court has allowed the said petition and dissolved the marriage of applicant No.1 and non- applicant No.2 on 04.09.2026. Non-applicant No.2 has reiterated the contentions of the affidavit. She does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against the applicants. 7. Considering the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and both the parties have amicably settled their Judgment 5 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt 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, and a decree for mutual divorce has already been passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur, the pending proceedings may become a hindrance in their peaceful life. 8. 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 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 Judgment 6 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt 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.” 9. No doubt, there are allegations like Section 74 and 75 of the BNS against applicant No.2. However, since the dispute is essentially and predominantly of civil character arising out of a matrimonial discord, the application deserves to be allowed. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein, it has been observed in Para 29.4 as under: “29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family Judgment 7 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.” 10. 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 proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. (ii) FIR No.645/2024, dated 06.12.2024, registered with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 109, 115(2), 74, 75(1), 75(2), 351(2) and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Trial Case No.137/2026, pending before District Judge-6 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, are 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 Judgment 8 J-APL No.2161.2026.odt 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. 11. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:08:41