Bombay High Court
PANDURANG MAHADEV RAMPUREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed and the FIR and charge‑sheet are quashed subject to payment of costs.
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quash of FIR No. 529 of 2025 and charge‑sheet No. 1940 of 2025 pending before the JMFC Cantonment Court, Pune. The applicant and Respondent No. 2 had amicably settled the dispute, and the respondent filed an affidavit stating she had no objection to the quash. The State, while opposing continuation of the proceedings, agreed that the matter could be quashed but requested imposition of costs. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, etc.), held that there was no impediment to granting the application. Consequently, the application was allowed, the FIR and charge‑sheet were quashed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS when the parties have settled and the victim consents.
- Whether any legal impediment exists to granting the quash in view of the pending charge‑sheet.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 126(2), 528, 74, 78
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- settlement between parties
- victim consent
- cost order
- FIR quash
- charge‑sheet quash
Judgment
2-APL-140-2026.doc
Digitally signed
by GAYATRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAYATRI RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date:
2026.02.09
20:03:11 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2026
Pandurang Mahadev Rampure … Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
---
Mr. Siddharth Sutaria a/w Mr. Shailesh M., Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. Harshwardhan Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Hasan Mulani – PSI, Hadpasar Police Station, Pune City.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. This Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), is preferred by the Applicant
against the FIR bearing C. R. No. 529 of 2025 registered at
Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under
Sections 74, 78, 126(2) of the BNS and the charge-sheet bearing
R.C.C. No. 1940 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC
Gayatri shimpi 1
2-APL-140-2026.doc
Cantonment Court, Pune, arising out of the said FIR.
2. Applicant is present in Court with his Advocate Mr.
Siddharth Sutaria. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court with her
Advocate Mr. Harshwardhan Pawar. Photostat copies of the ID
proof of the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 are taken on
record and marked “X colly” for identification.
3. Mr. Siddharth Sutaria and Mr. Harshwardhan Pawar
jointly submit that the Applicant has amicably resolved the matter
with the Respondent No. 2 , who has given her no objection for
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
4. Advocate Mr. Harshwardhan Pawar tenders affidavit
dated 17th January, 2026 of Respondent No. 2 affirmed before
Notary Jlka Babasaheb Ingawale, Pune, along with the photostat
copy of the Aadhar Card and Pan Card. Said affidavit dated 12 th
January, 2026 is taken on record and collectively marked ‘X-1’ for
identification. Respondent No. 2 states that the said affidavit ( “X-
1”) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or
Gayatri shimpi 2
2-APL-140-2026.doc
coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the
affidavit dated 12th January, 2026 (“X-1”) are as per her say.
5. Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP submits that the
Applicant and Respondent No.2, having settled the dispute and the
Respondent No.2 having filed her affidavit (‘X-1’) no purpose
would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. He
submits that the same can be quashed, however he insists for
imposition of costs.
6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of
dispute, the Respondent No. 2 having given consent to quash the
criminal proceedings, statements of the Respondent No. 2 in the
affidavit (‘X-1’) and having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 1,
Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and
Others2 Vs. State of Gujarat Anr, Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr3, there is no impediment for allowing this
Application.
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641.
3 (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Gayatri shimpi 3
2-APL-140-2026.doc
7. Criminal Application No. 140 of 2026 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b), subject to payment of costs of Rs.
25,000/-. Consequently, the impugned FIR bearing C. R. No. 529
of 2025 registered with Hadapsar Police Station and charge-sheet
bearing R. C. C. No. 1940 of 2025 are quashed.
8. Applicant shall deposit the costs of Rs. 25,000/- in the
below mentioned account, within a period of two weeks from
today.
Central Police Welfare Fund
Account No: 914010029005759
Bank : Axis Bank Limited
Branch : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai - 400025
IFSC Code: UTIB0000060
9. Applicant shall file compliance affidavit along with
proof of deposit in the Registry of this Court on or before 27th
February, 2026 .
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Gayatri shimpi 4
Checking your session…