Bombay High Court

RUSHIKESH RAM MORE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that a lawful settlement verified by the registrar in a matrimonial dispute warrants the quash of the related criminal proceedings.

Summary

The petitioners, involved in a matrimonial dispute, filed a criminal application seeking quash of FIR No. 480 of 2025 and the related charge‑sheet. The parties verified their identities before the Judicial Registrar and executed a compromise deed on 24 July 2026, wherein the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.7 lakh as permanent alimony and return gold ornaments, and the respondent agreed not to claim further maintenance or stridhan. The court examined the compromise terms and the registrar’s report, finding the settlement bona fide and comprehensive. Relying on the settlement, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute can be quashed on the ground of a settlement between the parties.
Whether a compromise deed, once verified by the Judicial Registrar, is sufficient to extinguish liability under the FIR and charge‑sheet.

Subjects

matrimonial dispute
criminal compromise
quash of FIR
settlement deed
alimony
maintenance
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46659
                                                                        31appln235-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        31 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 235 OF 2026

                                 Rushikesh Ram More And Others
                                              VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                ...
            Mr. Wakale Vijay Shivaji, Advocate for the Applicants
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. Suraj R. Mantri, Advocate for Respondent No.2


                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 5th October, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, learned

            Advocate for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State.


            2.       By order dated 24.07.2026 passed by this Court in the present

            proceedings, the parties were directed to remain present before the

            learned Registrar (Judicial) to undergo verification of their identity as

            well as compromise terms arrived at between the parties. Accordingly,

            the learned Registrar (Judicial), on 07.10.2026 has produced on record

            its report along with terms of compromise dated 24.07.2026 signed by

            both the parties and their respective advocates.


            3.       Taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties

            is of matrimonial nature and that the parties have settled among

            themselves, the present application is taken for quahshment on the

            ground of settlement.



                                                                                1 of 2
                                                                        31appln235-26


           4.       Perused the record and also the terms of compromise executed

           between the parties. The terms of compromise refers in paragraph no.2

           that both the parties are ready and willing to withdraw all the cases

           against each other including the complaints/litigation which are not

           mentioned in the compromise terms.         Paragraph no.3 also refers that

           there has been monetary settlement between the parties, wherein the

           applicant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as permanent

           alimony to the original informant and have also agreed to return the

           gold ornaments of the informant. In return, the respondent/informant

           had agreed not to claim any maintenance in future or        not claim any

           ‘stridhan’ apart from what was received.

           5.       Taking into consideration the report of the learned Registrar

           (Judicial) along-with compromise deed dated 24.07.2026, I am

           inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the following order:


                                          ORDER
           (a)   Criminal Application No. 235 of 2026 stands allowed.

           (b)   First Information Report bearing Crime No 480 of 2025 dated
                 24.11.2025 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded
                 which resulted in filing of Charge-sheet No.30/2025 dated
                 20.03.2025 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
                 hereby quashed and set aside.

           (d)   No orders as to costs.




                                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan


                                                                                2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…