Bombay High Court

MAYUR MADHUKAR MORE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The court quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet, allowing the application and imposing a cost of Rs.10,000 on the applicants.

Summary

The applicants, members of the same family, sought to quash FIR No. 506 of 2023 and the accompanying charge‑sheet for alleged assault under Sections 324, 326 and 323 IPC, claiming the dispute had been amicably settled. The incident was reported 19 days after it occurred, and no medical evidence from a government hospital supported the alleged injuries. Respondent No.2, who filed the complaint, appeared before the court, affirmed the facts, and expressed no objection to the quashment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Narinder Singh v. State (2014) SCC 466, the court exercised its inherent powers to dismiss the criminal proceedings, noting the absence of any prospect of conviction. The court ordered the applicants to pay Rs.10,000 as costs to a government cancer hospital.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet can be quashed under the court’s inherent powers when the parties have settled the family dispute and there is no evidence of injury.
Whether the applicants should be ordered to pay costs to the government hospital.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 324, 326, 34

Subjects

quashment of FIR
inherent powers of court
family dispute
Section 324 IPC
cost order
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3484-DB




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         913 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2838 OF 2025

                               MAYUR MADHUKAR MORE AND OTHERS
                                                VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                    ...
           Mr. J. V. Patil, Advocate for Applicants
           Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent/State
           Mr. B. S. Dhawale, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                                                CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                                DATED   : 23rd JANUARY, 2026

           P. C. :-

           1.          By this application, Applicants seek quashment of FIR in Crime

           No. 506 of 2023 registered with Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal, District

           Jalgaon for offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of Indian

           Penal Code. Applicants further seek quashment of charge-sheet and further

           proceeding pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal in R.C.C.

           No. 182 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 323

           read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.


           2.          The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information

           dated 19.10.2023 given by Respondent No.2. It is alleged that on 01.10.2023,

           accused persons assaulted Respondent No.2 using baseball bat and wooden




           913 APPLN 2838.2025.odt                                                1 of 3
sticks as such he suffered injuries on head and other parts of body. Apparently,

FIR has been lodged after 19 days of incident. Eventually, Crime No. 506 of

2023 was registered with Bazar Peth Police Station, Bhusawal. On completion

of investigation, charge-sheet is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Bhusawal.


3.          Respondent No.2 is personally present before this Court. He filed

affidavit-in-reply and accepts contents to be true and correct. He has no

objection for quashment of FIR and further proceeding. It is stated that,

Applicant No.1 is brother-in-law, Applicant No.2 is sister-in-law and Applicant

No.3 is son of Applicant No.2 and Applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of

Respondent No.2. Since parties are members a family, they have amicably

settled dispute, accordingly this Court is persuaded to quash FIR and

consequential proceedings.


4.          Having considered contents of FIR, material collected during the

course of investigation, it is evident that, parties had a family dispute.

Although Respondent No.2 alleged to have suffered injuries, there is no

supporting medical record from Government Hospital. Now Respondent No.2

has amicably settled dispute with Applicants so as to maintain harmony in the

family.




913 APPLN 2838.2025.odt                                                    2 of 3
5.           In the aforesaid backdrop, looking to the law laid down by

Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh & others vs. State Punjab and

another reported in (2014) SCC 466, and factual aspects discussed above, this

Court finds that case is made out for exercise of inherent powers to quash

criminal proceeding, particularly when there are no chances of conviction.


6.           Learned APP submits that since police machinery was exerted in

filing of charge-sheet, some costs needs to be imposed. There appears

substance in contention of learned APP, hence Applicants shall pay costs of

Rs.10,000/- to the Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance.


7.           In view of this, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses

‘B’ and ‘B-i’, subject to payment of costs as indicated above.



                                            (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)


ssp




913 APPLN 2838.2025.odt                                                  3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…