Bombay High Court

SAMADHAN BHAGWAN KAKADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The High Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings.

Summary

The applicants sought to quash FIR No.118/2025 filed for offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the matrimonial dispute with the respondent had been amicably settled, with the husband agreeing to pay maintenance and filing a mutual consent divorce. Both parties appeared before the Court and submitted an affidavit confirming the settlement. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which permits High Courts to quash non‑compoundable criminal proceedings when the dispute is civil in nature and the parties have settled. Considering the settlement and the potential hardship to the applicant, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and the consequent criminal case. The application for quash was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can quash an FIR and related criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences arising from a matrimonial dispute when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
Whether the inherent powers of the Court may be invoked in such circumstances despite the offences not being compoundable.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

quash of FIR
inherent powers
non‑compoundable offences
matrimonial dispute
dowry
settlement
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23898-DB
                                           (1)                     appln-2929-2025.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2929 OF 2025

                      SAMADHAN S/O BHAGWAN KAKADE AND OTHERS
                                           VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                               …
               Ms. Sunita R. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants.
               Mr. C. V. Bhadane, AGP for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. M. B. Ubale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                               …
                                       CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                       DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026.
               P.C.:-

               1.       The applicants seeks to quash FIR No.118/2025 dated

               31.03.2025     registered   with   Jawaharnagar     Police      Station,

               Aurangabad, District Aurangabad for offences punishable under

               Sections 85, 115, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

               and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.            By way of

               amendment, prayer is incorporated to quash and set aside

               cognizance    order   and   consequential   proceeding   in    Regular

               Criminal Case No.1618/2025 pending before Judicial Magistrate

               First Class, Aurangabad.


               2.       Today, learned Advocate appearing for applicants and

               respondents no.2 made joint submission that parties have arrived

               at amicable settlement of dispute and wish to tender terms of

               settlement/affidavit on record of this Court. Accordingly, they have

               relegated to Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.      The report of

               Registrar (Judicial) is placed before this Court, which suggests that
                                (2)                        appln-2929-2025.odt



respondents no.2 wife has filed affidavit and affirms contents

thereof.


3.       Perusal of affidavit shows that parties have amicably settled

dispute.        The applicant husband agreed to pay amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-       towards   full    and   final   maintenance      to    wife.

Accordingly, parties have filed petition for divorce by mutual

consent before Family Court at Aurangabad vide Case No.Petition-

F/135/2026. Parties are personally present before this Court and

affirmed terms of aforesaid settlement.


4.       At this stage, reference can be given to observations of

Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and Ors.1, which reads thus:

        “certain    offences    which       overwhelmingly     and
        predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of
        civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or
        such like transactions or the offences arising out of
        matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the
        family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and
        the offender and victim have settled all disputes between
        them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences
        have not been made compoundable, the High Court may
        within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
        criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is
        satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
        hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by
        not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
        casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

5.       In light of aforesaid exposition of law and looking to fact that

matrimonial dispute between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is

1    (2014) 6 SCC 466.
                           (3)                     appln-2929-2025.odt



amicably settled and they have decided to separate from each

other, continuation of criminal proceedings against applicant would

cause hardship to him. No purpose would serve if trial is permitted

to go on. As such, case is made out to exercise inherent powers to

quash and set aside FIR and consequential criminal proceeding.


6.      In that view of matter, Criminal Application is allowed in

terms of prayer Clauses (B) and (C-1).



                                     (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                              JUDGE
Devendra/June-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…