Bombay High Court

YOGESH GOVINDRAO MEKHE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The court held that the FIR and consequent proceedings may be quashed as the alleged conduct does not constitute an offence under Section 109 and, at most, falls under Section 118(1), and the parties have settled the dispute voluntarily.

Summary

The applicants, Yogesh, Venktesh and Sai Mekhe, sought quashment of FIR No. 54/2025 filed for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from a dispute over water spillage that escalated into assault. The parties later reached an amicable settlement, signed a compromise deed voluntarily, and the injured parties filed affidavits confirming the settlement. The court examined the nature of the injuries, the facts of the FIR, and the applicability of the charged sections, concluding that the alleged assault did not meet the intensity required for Section 109 and at most could attract Section 118(1). Given the settlement and lack of criminal intent, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and related proceedings. The court also imposed a modest cost of Rs.5,000 on each applicant to be paid to a charitable society, with compliance to be reported within three weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings can be quashed under the inherent powers of the court in view of an amicable settlement.
Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the alleged conduct, at most, attracts liability under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 302, 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

quashment of FIR
inherent powers of court
settlement deed
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 109
Section 118
criminal procedure
cost order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:17040-DB
                                                                     APPLN-2606-2025.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2606 OF 2025

          1.    Yogesh s/o. Govindrao Mekhe
                Age: 35 years, occu. Business
                R/o. Dhondipura, Sarafa Galli,
                Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed.

          2.    Venktesh s/o. Govindran Mekhe
                Age: 42 years, Occu. Business,
                R/o. Dhondipura, Sarafa Galli, Beed
                Tq. & Dist. Beed.

          3.    Sai S/o. Venktesh Mekhe
                Age: 16 years, Occu, Education
                U/g. Venktesh s/o Govindrao Mekhe
                R/o. Dhondipura, Sarafa Galli,
                Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed.                          ...Applicants

                Versus

          1.    The State of Maharashtra
                Through: Police Inspector. of City Police Station
                Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

          2.    Kartik s/o Nagnath Tak
                Age: 26 years, occu. Business
                R/o. Datta Mandir Galli,
                Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.                         …Respondents
                                             ***
          • Mr. A. L. Kanade, Advocate for the Applicants
          • Ms. R. R. Tandale, APP for the Respondent/State
          • Mr. Moinpasha Shaikh Farid, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                             ***
                                         CORAM         : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
                                         DATE          : APRIL 18, 2026

          FINAL ORDER :

          1.            The Applicants seeks quashment of FIR No. 54/2025 dated

          08.04.2025 registered with City Police Station, Beed for offences

                                          PAGE 1 OF 4
                                                            APPLN-2606-2025.odt




punishable under Sections 302, 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2),

3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’)


2.          On 18.08.2025, learned Advocates appearing for Applicants

and Respondent No.2 submit that parties have arrived at amicable

settlement of dispute and they want to place terms of such settlement

on record. Accordingly, they were permitted to remain present before

Court on 04.09.2025 and appear before Registrar (Judicial) of this Court

for verification. On 15.09.2025, Registrar (Judicial) of this Court

forwarded   report   stating   that   parties   admitted   signatures       on

compromise deed and they have stated that they have signed said

document voluntarily without any force or fraud being played on them.

In this backdrop, this Court had directed learned APP to place on record

investigation papers, more particularly, medical papers considering

nature of injuries suffered by victim in present case.


3.          The learned APP placed on record documents collected

during course of investigation. The medical certificate of injured

Nagnath Laxman Tak shows that he suffered 3 CLW and 1 abrasion. All

injures are simple in nature and attributed against use of hard and

blunt object. 2nd injured Kartik Nagnath Tak suffered 3 CLW, all are

simple in nature.




                                PAGE 2 OF 4
                                                           APPLN-2606-2025.odt




4.          The perusal of FIR shows that incident occurred on account

of trifle reason. It is alleged that while informant was cleaning his shop

and pouring water, some drops went on staircase of shop of accused

persons, which is on opposite side. For aforesaid reason, there was

exchange of abuses and then accused Yogesh assaulted informant and

other injured persons.


5.          The accused persons appears to be neighbors of each other

and they have amicably settled dispute. From nature of allegations in

FIR, statements of charge-sheet and nature of injuries suffered by

victim, this Court finds that offence under Section 109 of BNS would not

attract. There is nothing to show that assault was made with intention

and intensity to kill, which is prime ingredient to make out said offence.

As such, at the most, offence under Section 118(1) of BNS may attract in

present case. There is nothing on record to show that there are criminal

antecedents against accused persons. Now, informant and injured

witnesses have voluntarily given affidavit stating that they have

amicably settled dispute and having no interest to prosecute criminal

case against Applicants.


6.          At this stage, learned APP submits that on basis of FIR,

investigation is carried out and charge-sheet is filed so also

investigating machinery as well as judicial time has been consumed. In

                                PAGE 3 OF 4
                                                          APPLN-2606-2025.odt




this backdrop, some cost may be imposed, if Court considers to quash

FIR and consequential proceedings.


7.         In that view of matter, this Court finds that case is made out

to exercise inherent powers to quash and set aside FIR and

consequential proceedings. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in

terms of prayer clauses ‘B’, ‘B-1’ & ‘B-2’ subject to payment of cost of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) by each Applicants to SAKAR

(Society for Adoption Knowledge Awareness and Resource), 177, Ajmera

Complex, Main Road, Jyoti Nagar, New Osmanpura, Chhatrapati

Sambhajinagar. Compliance to be reported within three weeks to this

Court from date of order.



                                        (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh




                               PAGE 4 OF 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…