PRASAD PANDURANG PADIYAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                             111_IA_271_2026.doc



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO.884 OF 2010
                               WITH
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2026


Prasad Pandurang Padiyar and Anr.                …Petitioners/ Applicants
     Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                …Respondents


Mr. J.S. Kini a/w Sapna Krishnappa and Jagruti Yadav i/by
      Suresh Dubey, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Dilip Bodake a/w Shreeniwas Magar and Shraddha Pawar,
      for the Respondent No.2.


                        CORAM           DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
                        DATED:          20TH FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-


1.              Leave to amend the prayer clause to add prayer

seeking quashing and setting aside the FIR as well as the

charge-sheet therein is granted. Amendment be carried out

forthwith.



2.              By this Petition, the Petitioners seek quashing and

setting aside of FIR No. 136 of 2005 dated 1st June, 2005




                                   Page 1 of 6
                              th
                            20 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                       111_IA_271_2026.doc


registered with the Dombivli Police Station, along with the

charge-sheet.



3.              The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and

mother-in-law, respectively, of Respondent No.2.



4.              The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner

No.1 and Respondent No.2 were married on 3rd April, 2005, at

Wadala, Mumbai as per Hindu rites. There are no children of

the said wedlock. During their marriage, there were some

differences between the parties, which led to a matrimonial

discord. The Petitioner No.1 had filed a petition bearing no. A-

1792 of 2005 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai for

annulment of marriage under the provisions of Section 12(1)

(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He, thereafter, amended

the prayer and sought dissolution of marriage on the ground

of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 also filed a petition

bearing no. A-1514 of 2008 before the Family Court seeking

dissolution of marriage. Vide judgment and order dated 9 th



                                   Page 2 of 6
                              th
                            20 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                      111_IA_271_2026.doc


October, 2009, Petition No. A-1792 of 2005 filed by the

Petitioner No.1 was allowed and the marriage between the

parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, Petition

No. A-1514 of 2008 filed by the Respondent No.2 herein was

dismissed. The Respondent No.2 assailed the judgment and

order dated 9th October, 2009 passed by the Family Court in

Petition No. A-1792 of 2005 before this Court. Thereafter, by

order dated 2nd March, 2010 she sought permission to

withdraw the said appeal. Accordingly, this Court permitted to

withdraw the said appeal and the appeal was disposed of as

withdrawn.



5.              In the meantime, the Respondent No.2 lodged FIR

dated 1st June, 2005 with the Dombivli Police Station. After

investigation, the concerned police officials filed the charge-

sheet in the said CR before JMFC at Kalyan. Hence, the

Petitioners have approached this Court for the reliefs as

prayed. During the course of hearing of the present Petition

the parties decided to settle the matter amicably and




                                  Page 3 of 6
                             th
                           20 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                   111_IA_271_2026.doc


accordingly, they have filed the consent terms in the matter.

The consent terms are signed by both the parties. Both the

parties are identified by their respective counsel and the

counsels have also put their signatures on the said consent

terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked as

‘X’ for identification. The consent terms are also supported by

separate affidavits of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2.

The said Affidavits are affirmed and attested before the

Assistant Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay. In the

averments in the affidavit of the Petitioner in Paragraph No.5,

the Respondent No.2 has also undertaken and agreed that she

has unconditionally withdrawn the allegations made by her

against Petitioner No.1 in the marriage petition as well as

other proceedings. The Court is informed that since the

Petitioner No.2 is more than 80 years of age, she is unable to

attend the Court. However, on her instructions, Mr. Kini

confirmed that she has agreed to the said consent terms

supported by the Affidavits.




                               Page 4 of 6
                          th
                        20 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                      111_IA_271_2026.doc


6.              Considering that the parties have settled the

matter, the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet is quashed

and set aside. Since, the Respondent No. 2 has withdrawn her

appeal against the Judgment, Order and Decree passed by the

Family Court, Bandra, the findings in the said Judgment stand

confirmed. However, in view of the consent terms filed by the

parties in the present matter, on the basis of which the FIR

and charge-sheet are quashed, the observations and findings

in the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 9th October 2009

passed in Petition No. A-1792 of 2005, pertaining to the

allegations made by the parties against each other, stand

expunged. The consent terms and affidavits shall form part

and parcel of the present order. The Writ Petition is disposed

of in the aforesaid terms.



7.              In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition,

nothing survives for consideration in the Interim Application

and the same is also disposed of.




                                  Page 5 of 6
                             th
                           20 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
    (P.A.)                                                111_IA_271_2026.doc


8.              In   view   of        the     same,     case   bearing    RCC

No.293/2005 pending before the JMFC Court, Kalyan, is

quashed and set aside.




                                                    (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)




                                      Page 6 of 6
                                 th
                             20 February 2026