SHARIQ FIROZ SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                              148. APL 1768-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1768 OF 2026

                      Shariq Firoz Shaikh                                   .Applicant

                                Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                       .Respondents
ANAND
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. Ritesh Karkera, Advocate, for the Applicant
Digitally signed by
                      Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. M. M. Khot, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
Date: 2026.09.21
21:12:23 +0530

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE     : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Karkera, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Palkar,

                      learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Khot, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      The Applicant and the Complainant are both before the Court.

                      They are, in fact, married to each other and very happy. The present

                      complaint was filed more than six years ago under Section 376(2)(n)

                      and other provisions. Since the parties have married each other and the

                      Criminal prosecution/proceeding is pending, they have persuaded the

                      Court to quash the proceedings. In such matters, the Court should step

                      in put an end to the Criminal prosecution, since the parties in such

                      facts cannot be forced to live with the ignominy of the Criminal

                      Anand                              1 of 4
                                                     148. APL 1768-2026.doc

prosecution and proceedings as a Sword of Damocles especially when

both the parties are happily married to each other. Adhering to the

request made and the Consent Affidavit dated 07.09.2026, a copy of

which is given to the Court, the Petition stands allowed.

3.      Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any

Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands

incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the

language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts

invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with

malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding

procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal

proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the

accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC

and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from

case to case.

4.      In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said

judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                             2 of 4
                                                             148. APL 1768-2026.doc

further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment

of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has

held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where

necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the

prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of

justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and

dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because

they involve societal implication.


5.      In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute or

the lis between them is purely civil and commercial or matrimonial and

the offence is not heinous or does not impact the society at large, the

Court can consider such request.


6.      In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be

allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which

read thus:-

           “a)   Quash and set aside C.R. No.33 of 2021 registered with Vikhroli
                 Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections
                 376(2)(N), 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all
                 consequential proceedings arising therefore, insofar as the present
                 Applicant is concerned;
           b)    Quash and set aside Sessions Case No. 100401 of 2024 bearing
                 CNR No. MHCC020073692024 pending before the learned
                 Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 35, Mumbai, arising out of
                 C.R. No. 33 of 2021, and all consequential proceedings arising
                 therefrom, insofar as the present Applicant is concerned.”



Anand                                  3 of 4
                                                        148. APL 1768-2026.doc

7.      Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.




                                                (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                             4 of 4