Bombay High Court
AMOL GOPALDAS RATHI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that, given the parties’ settlement and the complainant’s clear intention not to proceed, the criminal proceedings were to be quashed.
Summary
The applicants, a husband, filed a petition to quash the FIR (Crime No. 0105 of 2025) and related criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC, alleging that the dispute with his wife (Respondent No. 2) was resolved through a compromise deed. The parties appeared before the registrar, verified their identities, and voluntarily signed a settlement indicating the misunderstanding was cleared and the wife had no objection to withdrawing the allegations. The compromise deed also noted that the couple had filed a mutual‑consent divorce petition in the Family Court. The court considered that the wife’s expressed wish not to pursue prosecution removed any useful purpose for continuing the criminal case. Accordingly, the judge allowed the criminal application, quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings, and disposed of the application. The decision rests on the principle that settled civil disputes and the complainant’s consent can justify dismissal of pending criminal matters.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a mutual compromise and the complainant’s consent.
- Whether a settlement deed and mutual‑consent divorce negate the public interest in prosecuting the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 498A, 504
Subjects
- criminal law
- quash
- FIR
- settlement deed
- mutual consent divorce
- IPC 498A
- domestic violence
- public interest
Judgment
1 948APPLN2366.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
948 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2366 OF 2025
Amol Gopaldas Rathi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
...
Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore - Advocate for Applicants
Mr. V. K. Kotecha - APP for the State
Mr. C. V. Bodkhe - Advocate for Respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants, the learned
APP for the State, and the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent
No. 2.
2. The present Petition has been filed for quashing of the First
Information Report bearing Crime No. 0105 of 2025, dated 08.03.2025,
registered with Satara Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for quashing all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet,
cognizance order, and criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 1846 of
2025, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
2 948APPLN2366.2025.odt
3. By order dated 18.08.2026, the parties were relegated to
the learned Registrar (Judicial) for the purpose of verification of their
identities as well as the terms of settlement arrived at between them.
Accordingly, the verification was carried out, and the report regarding
the terms of settlement was submitted by the learned Registrar
(Judicial). The report clearly states that both parties i.e. the Husband
and Wife, were present before the learned Registrar (Judicial) and
admitted and accepted the contents of the terms of settlement. They also
admitted their respective signatures thereon and stated that they had
signed the same voluntarily. Their identities were also duly verified.
4. On perusal of the terms of compromise, it appears that the
dispute between the parties arose out of a misunderstanding, which has
now been resolved. The parties have decided to withdraw the
allegations made against each other. Clause 4 of the Compromise Deed
specifically refers to the proceedings pending before this Court and the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in the present Application. The
said clause records that Respondent No. 2 has no objection to allowing
the present Criminal Application and quashing the criminal proceedings
i.e. R.C.C. No. 1846 of 2025, along with the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.
0105 of 2025, dated 08.03.2025, registered with Satara Police Station,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
3 948APPLN2366.2025.odt
5. The Compromise Deed further records that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have decided to put an end to all
disputes between them. Respondent No. 2 [Wife] and Applicant No. 1
[Husband] have also filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent
before the learned Family Court. Respondent No. 2 has given her
consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute and Respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that she
does not wish to proceed with the prosecution against the present
Applicants, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the proceedings pending against the Applicants. Hence,
Criminal Application No. 2366 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘F’.
7. The Application stands disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]
JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/09/2026 17:55:46
Checking your session…