Bombay High Court

SAHIL BABU KAVALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 25 June 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The Court allowed the applications and quashed the FIR, subject to each party depositing the stipulated costs.

Summary

The High Court considered two criminal applications filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of FIR No.133 of 2026 registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR arose from a family dispute involving two minors, which the parties had amicably settled, and the complainant filed affidavits expressing no objection to quashing. The State had no objection to the settlement but sought costs against the applicants. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that continuation of prosecution served no useful purpose and allowed the applications, quashing the FIR subject to each party depositing Rs.25,000 as costs. The parties were directed to file compliance affidavits within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR arising from a family dispute can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the parties have settled the matter.
Whether the consent of the complainant and the lack of State objection justify the quashing of the FIR.
Whether the imposition of costs as a condition precedent is permissible.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 309(4), 351(2)

Subjects

family dispute
quash of FIR
Section 528
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
settlement of parties
minor children
costs
criminal proceedings

Judgment

Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL (25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.06.30
11:22:08 +0530 lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.939 OF 2026

Sachin Kisan Shinde : Applicant.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents

ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1109 OF 2026

Sahil Babu Kavale: Applicant.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents.
-----

Mr. Arjun Kode a/w Advocates Ashvin Bansod and Prashant
Divate for the Applicants in both the Applications.
Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Prajit Manjrekar a/w Mr. Aniket Gavand for Respondent
No.2 in both the Applications..
PSI Bhairavnath Shelke, Badlapur East Police Thane City
present.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 25 JUNE 2026
PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Arjun Kode, learned Advocate for the
Applicants, Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for Respondent

1
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

No.1-State and Mr. Prajit Manjrekar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2.

2. Mr. Arjun Kode, learned Advocate for the Applicants and
Mr. Prajit Manjrekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,
submit that Criminal Application No. 939 of 2026 and
Criminal Application No. 1109 of 2026 arise out of FIR
No.133 of 2026 dated 02 April 2026 registered with Badlapur
(East) Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 137(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2)
and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“impugned
FIR”). They submit that the Applicants in these Applications
are Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 1, respectively, in the
impugned FIR and therefore request that both these
Applications be taken up for disposal by way of a common
order. This request is not opposed by Ms. Shilpa Talhar,
learned APP for the Respondent/State. In view of the request,
both these Applications are taken up together.

3. Both these Applications under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are preferred by
the Applicants for quashing the impugned FIR.

4. Mr. Arjun Kode, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
and Mr. Prajit Manjrekar, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2, submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR was
a family dispute between two families. They submit that the
issue involved two minors from the said two families. They
submit that, out of anger, Respondent No.2 filed the present

2
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

complaint, which led to the registration of the impugned FIR.
They submit that, with the intervention of the elders, family
members, and friends, the Applicants and Respondent No.2
have amicably resolved the dispute. They submit that, upon
resolution of the dispute, both families have decided to put an
end to the criminal proceedings and therefore Respondent
No.2 has filed Affidavits dated 25 June 2026 (Two Affidavits)
in both these Applications, giving her no objection. They
therefore request that the criminal proceedings be quashed.

5. The Applicants in both these Applications are present in
Court and they are identified by their Advocate Mr Arjun
Kode. He tenders the Photostat copy of the Identity Card of
the Applicant in Criminal Application No.939 of 2026, which
is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification, as also
the Photostat copy of the Identity Card of the Applicant in
Criminal Application No.2209 of 2026, which is taken on
record and marked as “X” for identification.

6. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is
identified by her Advocate Mr. Prajit Manjrekar. He tenders
the Photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card in both
the Applications separately, which is taken on record and
marked as “X-1” for identification.

7. Mr. Prajit Manjarekar, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2, states that the two Affidavits, dated 25 June 2026, are
affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary D. A. Dube,
Malad (E), Mumbai and are placed on record in both

3
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

Applications. They are marked independently as “X-2” for
identification.

8. Respondent No. 2 states that the Affidavits (X-2) are
filed of her own free will and without any pressure or
coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the
Affidavits (X-2) are as per her say. She submits that she and
the Applicants, in the interest of their minor children, have
decided to settle the matter and upon settlement she has
given her no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR.
She states that to have peace in the family, she wants to bring
the criminal proceedings to an end. She states that she would
not support the prosecution’s case. She relies on paragraph
Nos. 5 to 10 of Criminal Application No. 939 of 2026, which
are transcribed herein below in verbatim :-

“5. I say that, due to misunderstanding, the present FIR
was registered. I say that, as life and future of two
minor kids is at stake in the present case i.e my son and
niece of the Applicant both the families of the Applicant
and my family have decided to put an end to the
ongoing case by amicably settling the dispute. I say that,
both the parties have decided not to proceed with any
case, i.e. present FIR with regard to the present incident
in question against the two minor kids from both the
side and on this understanding, both the parties have
decided to put an end to litigation. In this manner both
the parties are requesting this Hon'ble Court to quash an
FIR in question.

6. I say that there are no disputes to be settled as there
never was any grudge against each other and the
alleged incident seems to have occurred only because of
the neglect & misunderstanding. There are no
controversy between us.

7. I say that I am ready and willing to give my consent
for quashing the FIR in question against Mr. Sachin K.

4
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

Shinde & Sahil Babu Kavale i.e. the Applicant & other
unknown Accused persons, bearing F.I.R No. 133 of
2026 at Badlapur (East) Police Station U/S. 137(2),
189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 115(2), 309(4) of
BNS. which is pending before the Hon'ble J.M.F.C.
Court, Chikhloli, Ambernath, Maharashtra and I
undertake to assist the Applicant in taking all the steps
and I also undertakes to file the appropriate documents
at the appropriate stage if required.

8. I say that nothing also remains in the matter as both
parties have come before this Hon'ble Court to settle the
issues pending before the Hon'ble J.M.F.C. Chikhloli
Court at Ambernath & Badlapur (E) Police station.

9. I say that no fruitful purpose will be served by
keeping the said matter pending. I say that, life & future
of two minor children is at stake, and therefore, the
present F.I.R may be quashed.

10. I say that I have filed the present Affidavit without
any undue influence and without any coercion and
without any pressure from anyone including my family
members. I say that I have filed the Present Affidavit
with free will and in full consciousness.”

9. Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, submits that as the family dispute between
the two families involving two minors has been amicably
resolved by the parties, the Respondent No.1-State has no
objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She submits
that the police machinery was set in motion in respect of a
dispute which otherwise did not warrant police interference,
as such she insists on the imposition of costs on the Applicants
and the Respondent No. 2.

10. Mr. Arjun Kode, learned Advocate for the Applicants and
Mr. Prajit Manjrekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2,

5
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

on instructions, submit that the appropriate costs would be
paid.

11. Perusal of the record indicates that the subject matter of
the impugned FIR appears to have been a family dispute
involving two minor children (one boy and one girl). The
relationship between the two minors led to a discord between
the two families, resulting in acrimony and the filing of the
complaint. Both parties have now settled their dispute
amicably.

12. Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the
submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the no
objection given by Respondent No.2 in her Affidavits (X-2)
and further her statement that she does not intend to support
the prosecution case, no useful purpose will be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.

13. Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab1, Narinder
Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anr 2 and Parbatbhai
Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat3, there is no
impediment in allowing these Applications.

14. In view of the above, subject to the Applicants in both
Applications paying Rs.25,000/- each and the Respondent
No.2 paying costs of Rs.25,000/-, both these Criminal

1
2012 10 SCC 303
2
2014 6 SCC 466
3
2017 9 SCC 641

6
(25&26) APL-939.26&APL-1109.26.DOCX

Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Payment of costs is a condition precedent. Consequently, the
impugned FIR is quashed.

15. The Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 shall deposit
their respective costs in the Account mentioned below within
four weeks from today and file the compliance affidavit, along
with proof of deposit, in the Registry of this Court on or
before 31 July 2026.

16. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.939 of 2026
shall deposit the amount of Rs. 25, 000/-, the Applicant in
Criminal Application No.1109 of 2026 shall deposit the
amount of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent No.2 in both these
Applications shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- in :-

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai
Account No.: 000120110001337
Bank : Bank of India
Branch : Mumbai Main
IFSC Code : BKID0000001

17. The Criminal Application Nos. 939 of 2026 and 1109 of
2026 are disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…