Bombay High Court
SHANKAR BHAGWAN DONGRE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- GAUTAM A ANKHAD
Holding
The court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings as the dispute was private and the complainant withdrew his wish to prosecute.
Summary
The applicants filed a criminal application seeking quash of FIR C.R. No.I‑2 of 2019, which alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code arising from an assault incident in a school. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, Respondent No.2, as a counter‑complaint to a non‑cognizable complaint filed by one of the applicants. The parties subsequently settled their dispute amicably, and the complainant executed an affidavit stating he no longer wished to pursue the case, which the court recorded on 4 March 2019. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika (2011) 10 SCC 705, the judge held that the court may quash criminal proceedings when the dispute is private and the complainant withdraws. Consequently, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. The application was allowed, and the matter was disposed of in favour of the applicants.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR can be quashed when the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant no longer wishes to proceed with prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- settlement
- private dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2019
01. Shankar Bhagwan Dongre ]
02. Krushna Bhagwan Dongre ]
03. Ramnath Laxman Dongre ]
04. Pappu @ Mahesh Bhagwan Dongre ]
05. Rahul Ravindra Nagre ]
06. Ravindra Nagre ]
07. Somnath Laxman Dongre ]
08. Sagar Vilas Nagre ]
09. Krushna Sitaram Ugale ]
10. Jayesh Satish Nagre ]
11. Sukalal Sahebrao Shinde ] .. Applicants
Versus
01. The State of Maharashtra ]
02. Mhasu Walmik Chakore ] .. Respondents
Mr. Chetan S. Damse with Mr. Omkar S. Banbe, Advocates for the Applicants.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra.
Mr. Manoj Kondekar with Ms. Farzana Khan, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 23RD JANUARY 2026.
P.C. :
1. The present Criminal Application seeks the following relief :
“(a). This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside FIR being C.R. No.I-2
of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 143, 147, 148,
149, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code registered with Yeola Taluka
Police Station at the instance of Respondent no.2 (Original Complainant).”
2. On 4th January 2019, the elder son of Respondent no.2 was assaulted by
Digitally
signed by 1/3
SNEHA SNEHA
ABHAY DIXIT 36-APL-63-2019.doc
ABHAY Date: Dixit
DIXIT 2026.01.23
17:57:34
+0530
Applicant no.10 in school due to a misunderstanding. On 5 th January 2019, the
quarrel took place between the parties and Respondent no.2 filed the impugned First
Information Report with Yeola Taluka Police Station, Nashik. It is submitted that the
said FIR was lodged as counterblast to a Non-Cognizable complaint dated 5 th January
2019 registered by one of the Applicants against Respondent no.2.
3. The parties have since then settled their disputes amicably. Respondent no.2
has filed an affidavit dated 15th January 2019 stating that he does not wish to continue
the proceedings arising out of the FIR and all issues have been resolved amicably.
The consent was recorded by this Court by its order dated 4 th March 2019 and the
appearance of the parties was also dispensed with on the next date of hearing.
Thereafter, although attempts were made to list the matter on several occasions, this
matter could not be heard.
4. Ms. Bajoria, learned APP informs the Court that there are criminal antecedents
against Applicant nos.1 and 5. As against Applicant no.1, four FIRs are registered
between 2014 and 2019 as well as there are four NCs registered against the Applicant
no.1. As against Applicant no.5, two FIRs are registered between 2018 and 2019
including the present FIR.
5. As parties have resolved their disputes way back in 2019, in my view, the
present Criminal Application deserves to be allowed in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr., (2011) 10
2/3
36-APL-63-2019.doc Dixit
SCC 705 wherein it was reiterated that the Court is empowered to quash criminal
proceedings to meet the ends of justice especially in cases where the disputes are of
private nature and the complainant no longer wishes to proceed with the prosecution.
The parties have resolved their misunderstandings and no fruitful purpose will be
achieved in continuing the present prosecution. In view of the above, First
Information Report bearing C.R. No.I-2 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom stand quashed.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]
3/3
36-APL-63-2019.doc Dixit
Checking your session…