Bombay High Court

UMESH PARMESHWAR SONTAKKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that an FIR and related criminal proceedings may be quashed where the parties have entered into a verified settlement deed and the complainant has expressly consented to withdraw the prosecution.

Summary

The applicants and the respondent entered into a verified settlement deed, wherein the complainant agreed to withdraw the FIR and related criminal proceedings in exchange for a monetary settlement and mutual consent divorce. The court examined the registrar's verification report and the terms of the deed, noting that the victim no longer wished to prosecute. Relying on the provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the court considered whether the criminal case could be dismissed on the basis of the settlement. It concluded that the settlement and the complainant's consent justified quashing the FIR, charge‑sheet and all consequent proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal application was allowed and the FIR dated 05.12.2025 and the pending regular criminal case were set aside.

Issues considered

Can an FIR and pending criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement and the complainant's consent under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
Does the verification of a settlement deed by the registrar suffice to extinguish criminal liability in family‑related offences?

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85

Subjects

settlement deed
quash of FIR
criminal application
mutual consent divorce
alimony
family dispute
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42426
                                                                      968appln1122-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       968 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1122 OF 2026
                           Umesh Parmeshwar Sontakke And Others
                                          VERSUS
                            The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                ...

            Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande h/for Mr. Sharma Govind M., Advocate for
            the Applicants
            Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. Sanket S. Palnitkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 11th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the parties.

            2.       By order dated 24.07.2026, this Court had directed the parties
            to appear before the learned Registrar (Judicial) for the purpose of
            verification of the parties’ relations as well as terms of compromise. The
            learned Registrar(Judicial), after completion of verification, was
            directed to submit its report in this Court. Accordingly, the report has
            been submitted by the learned Registrar (Judicial) on 29.07.2026,
            which affirms that the settlement deed has been entered into between
            Applicant No.1 husband, Applicant Nos.3, 4 6 and respondent no.2-
            Wife. Along-with the report, the settlement deed is also placed on
            record, wherein the parties have stated that upon intervention of well
            wishers and relatives, the parties have settled the dispute among
            themselves amicably. It is further stated that respondent no.2 does not
            wish to prosecute and has agreed to quash the FIR and proceedings
            arising therefrom. It is further mentioned that the amicable settlement
            has been arrived at on the basis of monetary settlement, wherein
            applicant no.1 had agreed to pay respondent wife a sum of

                                                                                1 of 2
                                                                     968appln1122-26


           Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) towards permanent one-time lump-
           sum alimony in full and final settlement per the terms agreed. The
           parties have also preferred divorce petition by mutual consent before
           the competent court and the same is pending for final decree. As far as
           the children are concerned, the permanent custody of a minor son is
           stated to have been continued with applicant no.2 and respondent
           no.2 is   entitled to meet the said minor son once every month at
           mutually convenient place. The parties have also agreed to withdraw
           the pending litigations among themselves.

           3.        Taking into consideration the settlement deed, I am inclined to
           quash the FIR, charge-sheet filed therein and consequential orders
           /proceedings. Hence, the following order:


                                          ORDER

           (a)   Criminal application stands allowed.

           (c)   First Information Report bearing Crime No. 296 of 2015 dated
                 05.12.2025 registered with Bhokardan Police Station, District
                 Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections Sections 85,
                 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
                 2023 and consequential proceeding bearing Regular Criminal
                 Case No. 62 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Judicial
                 Magistrate, First Class, Bhokardn along-with the order      taking
                 cognizance     dated 16.02.2025 passed in the above referred
                 criminal case are hereby quashed and set aside.

           (d)   No order as to costs.




                                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan


                                                                               2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…