ANKUSH KISANRAO YELE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:30362-DB
                                                                     968-APPLN-486-2023.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 486 OF 2023

                              1. Ankush Kisanrao Yele (Father-in-law)
                          2. Kamal W/o Ankushrao Yele (Mother-in-law)
                           3. Amol S/o Ankushrao Yele (Brother-in-law)
                       4. Manisha W/o Amol Yele (Wife of Applicant No.4)
                          5. Sushma W/o Ankushrao Yele (Sister-in-law)
                                    6. Balasaheb Anukshrao Yele
                                              VERSUS
                                    1. The State Of Maharashtra
                                 2. Gangadwar W/o Balasaheb Yele
                                                 ...
          Mr. A. R. Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicants
          Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for Respondent No. 1/State
          Mr. A. P. Sonpethkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

                                                            CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                            DATE  : JULY 22, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.            At the outset, learned Counsel for the Applicants seeks leave to

          amend application by adding husband as party Applicant No. 6.


          2.            Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 records no objection for

          the same.


          3.            Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.


          4.            Learned Counsels for both sides makes statement that parties

          have settled the dispute and Respondent No. 2 has no objection for

          quashment of the proceedings as prayed in the application.



                                             Page 1 of 3
                                                        968-APPLN-486-2023.odt



5.            Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 makes statement that

Respondent No. 2 is personally present int he Court and she records no

objection for qushment of the proceedings. She files affidavit. The same is

taken on record.


6.            Perusal of the application indicates that the Applicants are

seeking quashment of proceedings bearing RCC No. 46/2023 pending

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Georai, District Beed in connection

with Crime No. 592/2022 registered with Georai Police Station for offences

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.


7.            Affidavit filed by the Original Informant/Respondent No. 2

indicates that pursuant to the settlement between the parties, mutual

divorce has been obtained by them in Petition No. F-81/2026 filed before

Family Court, Beed. Pursuant to the dissolvement of the marriage as per the

decree of divorce dated 08.07.2026, Respondent No. 2 does not wish to

proceed with the matter. She thus records no objection for allowing the

present Application in view of compromise and judgment and decree in

marriage Petition. The judgment and decree in marriage Petition indicates

that the parties have agreed to withdraw proceeding filed at their instance

against each other.


8.            At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the judgment of

                                  Page 2 of 3
                                                             968-APPLN-486-2023.odt



Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported

[AIR 2003 SC 1386] wherein it is held that in the event of settlement of

matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498-A can be quashed, even

though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the

Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14

and 15 which are reproduced herein below:

             “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
             Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
             Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
             her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
             498A was added with a view to punishing a husband
             and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
             coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands
             of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter
             productive and would act against interests of women
             and against the object for which this provision was
             added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of
             inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the
             ends of justice would prevent women from settling
             earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian
             Penal Code.

             15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
             High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
             quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and
             Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
             powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

9.           Considering the above facts and circumstances, continuation of

further proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence,

the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘B-3’.



                                                       (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani



                                    Page 3 of 3