Bombay High Court

PRAMOD REVCHAND AMRAO AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The court quashed the FIR and the pending criminal proceeding, finding that continuation would be oppressive given the parties’ settlement.

Summary

The applicants, Pramod and his in‑laws, sought quashment of FIR No. 0008/2025 filed under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a matrimonial dispute with respondent Diksha. Both parties had amicably settled the dispute and filed a mutual‑consent divorce petition, with the respondent filing a consent affidavit to withdraw the criminal complaint. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab that criminal cases of a predominantly civil character should be quashed when the parties resolve their issues, the court examined its inherent powers. It held that continuation of the prosecution would be oppressive and unnecessary. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and the related criminal proceeding (RCC No. 626/2025).

Issues considered

Whether an FIR arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed when the parties have settled the dispute and consent to withdrawal.
Whether the court’s inherent powers may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

criminal procedure
quashment of FIR
matrimonial dispute
settlement
inherent powers of court
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 85
Section 115(2)
Section 352
Section 351(3)
Section 3(5)
Narinder Singh precedent

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21392
APPLN-1255-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1255 OF 2026

1. Pramod s/o Revchand Amrao (Husband)
Age-35 years, Occ. Labour,

2. Ushabai w/o Revchand Amrao (Mother in law)
Age: 55 years, Occ. Household,

3. Revchand s/o Pujari Amrao (Father in law)
Age: 60 years, Occ. Labour,
All R/o Galli No.5, Anand Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad ...Applicants

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Gangapur Police Station,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad

2. Diksha w/o Pramod Amrao (Orig. Informant)
Age- 29 years, Occ. Household,
C/o Sajan Laxman Tupe,
R/o Bhendala, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad ...Respondents
...
Mr. J. S. Jain h/f Mr. K. A. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondents
Mr. M. A. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
DATE : MAY 08, 2026

PC :

1. The Applicants seek quashment of FIR No. 0008/2025 dated

09.01.2025 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for offences

punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of

PAGE 1 OF 3
APPLN-1255-2026.odt

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Today, learned Advocate appearing for Applicants and Respondent

No. 2 jointly submitted before this Court that parties have amicably settled dispute

and they have prepared terms of settlement. Eventually, they were relegated to

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of terms of settlement. The

Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 presented themselves before Registrar and

tendered consent affidavit wherein Respondent No. 2 consented to quash FIR and

consequential proceedings in RCC No. 626/2025. It is stated in paragraph 14 that

Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have filed Petition F-165/2026 for divorce

by mutual consent. They are residing separately and willingly decided to extinguish

matrimonial disputes. In paragraph 17, Respondent no. 2 states that in view of

amicable settlement with Applicant No. 1 she wants to withdraw complaint.

3. Apparently, Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have genuinely

settled their matrimonial dispute and wish to live peaceful life without indulging in

further litigation. At this stage, reference can be given to observations of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, particularly para 31 which reads thus :

“31. Where criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationships or family disputes should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. The
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and

PAGE 2 OF 3
APPLN-1255-2026.odt

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.”

4. In light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Narinder Singh (supra) and looking to nature of dispute and consenting affidavit

given by Respondent No. 2, this Court finds that continuation of criminal

prosecution in pursuance of impugned order could be a futile exercise and interest of

justice would subserve if proceedings are quashed by invoking inherent powers of

this Court.

5. In result, Criminal Application is allowed. The FIR No. 0008/2025

dated 09.01.2025 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for

offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) read with Section 3(5)

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequential proceeding in RCC No.

626/2025 pending before learned JMFC, Gangapur are hereby quashed and set

aside.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh

PAGE 3 OF 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…