MAHESH RAMESH JAISWAL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                -1-
                                                     criappln20.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2026

Mahesh Ramesh Jaiswal & others                    ….Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another                …..Respondents

Mr. P. K. Nikam, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for the State.
Ms. K. S. Sarin, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

                             CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                             DATE  : 13th JANUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.     Applicants have preferred this application invoking inherent

powers of this Court   under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing RCC No. 1095/2024 and order of issuance of

process passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon on

31.12.2024 on the basis of the First Information Report No.

0149/2024 registered with Jilhapeth Police Station, Jalgaon District

Jalgaon for the offence under Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.



2.    The brief facts leading to Criminal Application can be narrated

as under :-
                                  -2-
                                                      criappln20.26.odt

        Respondent No. 2/wife filed a complaint on 18.05.2024 with

Jilhapeth Police Station, alleging therein that her marriage with

Applicant No. 1 was solemnised on 23.03.2022. Appplicant Nos. 2 to

5 are the relatives of Applicant No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint

that since the date of marriage, Applicant No. 1 along with other

Applicants illtreated Respondent No. 2 physically and mentally. It is

further alleged that Applicant No. 1 is having illicit relations with his

cousin sister name Deepali Jaiswal.          Respondent No. 2/wife has

further alleged that on account of ill-treatement by all the Applicants,

she had to left her matrimonial house.           On the basis of these

allegations, First Information Report came to be registered under

Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.



3.      Learned Cousnel for Applicants and learned Counsel for

Respondent No. 2/informant submit that the parties have reached a

mutual compromise and have amicably settled the dispute. Reliance

is placed on the following judgments :-

(i)     Narindar Singh vs. State of Punjab
        2014(2) MLJ (Cri) 365.
(ii)    Sandip Pandurang Bawale Vs. State of Maharashtra
        2023 DGLS (Bom.) 133
                                 -3-
                                                     criappln20.26.odt

4.    The parties have now mediated the issue and unanimously

have agreed to settle all the disputes pending between them and have

filed the Consent Terms into writing in M.C.A. No. 129/2024.



5.    At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the observations

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Curt in case of Narinder Singh

(supra) as under :-

     “28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it
     is a serious offence as the accused person attempted to take
     the life of another person/victim, at the same time, the
     court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times
     whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
     physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or
     both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an
     offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as well.
     Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the
     provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not, by
     itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482
     of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the
     parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking
     a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be
     effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of
     injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the
     injuries were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused
     at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of
     weapons used etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is
                                  -4-
                                                    criappln20.26.odt

     a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307
     Indian Penal Code, once the evidence to that effect is led
     and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement
     between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of
     prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if
     the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section
     307 Indian Penal Code were unnecessary included in the
     charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding
     of the offence based on settlement between the parties.



6.    Similarly, in the case of Sandip (supra) this Court has

reiterated and followed with the issue of quashing the non-

compoundable offences while exercising powers under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.



7.    In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident that

the parties have reached an amicable settlement and have decided

to settle all the disputes between them.          The continuance of

proceedings would definitely lead to abuse of process of law. Hence, I

am inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to meet the ends of justice.
                                       -5-
                                                         criappln20.26.odt

8.     In the process, the entire State machinery has been misused by

the Applicants/Accused and Respondent No. 2 causing abuse of due

process of law.      Thus, in my considered opinion, the Applications

warrant consideration subject to payment of cost by the litigating

parties.



9.     Hence, the following order :-

                                   ORDER
      (i)     Application is allowed.
      (ii)    Proceeding of RCC No. 1095/2024 and order of
      issuance of process passed by learned Chief Judicial
      Magistrate, Jalgaon on 31.12.2024 on the basis of the First
      Information Report No. 0149/2024 registered with Jilhapeth
      Police Station, Jalgaon District Jalgaon for the offence under
      Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
      Penal Code stand quashed and set aside, subject to payment
      of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Respondent No. 2.
      (iii)   Needless   to   state,    non-compliance   of   aforesaid
      directions shall result into recall of this order without
      further reference to the Court.



                                               (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

dyb