Bombay High Court

RAMAKANT LAXMANT GAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: SANDESH D PATIL

Holding

An FIR cannot be quashed merely because a private dispute exists between the parties; there must be clear evidence of malafide intent, which was absent in this case.

Summary

The applicant, Ramakant Laxman Gawade, sought to have FIR No. 28 of 2025 and the accompanying chargesheet quashed, alleging that the FIR was filed malafidely due to an existing family dispute. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 74, 75(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an incident on 28 January 2025. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR was motivated by an oblique motive and should be dismissed. The court examined the FIR, the statements of witnesses, and found no material to infer that the FIR was lodged with a malafide intention. Consequently, the court held that a mere dispute between parties does not justify quashing a serious FIR without concrete evidence of malafide filing. The application for quashing was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR can be quashed on the ground that it was filed with an oblique or malafide motive arising from a private dispute

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 333, 351(2), 352, 74, 75(2)

Subjects

FIR quash
malafide filing
criminal procedure
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
oblique motive

Judgment

                                                               75-APL-951-2025 (CR).doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2025

Ramakant Laxman Gawade                      .....Applicant
     Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.           .....Respondents

                                    .....
Mr. Rahul R Patil, for the Applicant.

Mr. Avinash Naik, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.
                                     .....

                                        CORAM: SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
                                        DATED: 2nd JULY 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking quashing of

F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.28 of 2025 lodged at the instance of Chandgad

Police Station, District Kolhapur and Chargesheet No.95 of 2025 filed

before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandgad, District

Kolhapur on 29th January, 2025 for offences punishable under Sections

74, 75(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

along with all the consequential proceedings pending thereof. The case

of the Complainant is that the Complainant was residing along with her

daughter. Her husband was working in Army posted in Gujarat. The



Manisha                             1
                                                            75-APL-951-2025 (CR).doc




Complainant’s younger sister had dispute with her husband-present

Applicant. It is submitted that the husband of the first informant came

home on 28th January, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.. At that time, the Applicant

committed the offence which is stated in the F.I.R.



2.        Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the F.I.R. deserves

to be quashed because it is filed malafidely. He submits that there is

admittedly a dispute between the sister of the Complainant and the

present Applicant and that the F.I.R. is filed with oblique motive. The

learned Counsel for the Applicant does not raise any other ground other

than this



3.        Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. I have also perused the

copy of the F.I.R. along with the chargesheet. At this stage, it will be

very difficult to reach to a conclusion that the F.I.R. is lodged with a

oblique motive. The averments in the F.I.R. coupled with the statements

of the witnesses which were recorded do not permit to make out any

such an inference at this stage. It would not be safe to say that only

because dispute is pending between the parties therefore, the offences

which are serious in nature have been committed upon the


Manisha                              2
                                                        75-APL-951-2025 (CR).doc




Complainant by the Applicant. In this circumstance, at this stage, no

interference is required in this Application.



4.        In view of above, Criminal Application No.951 of 2025 is

dismissed.




                                                (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)




Manisha                            3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…