Bombay High Court

JAGANNATH S/O. MAHADEO PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the parties' settlement and withdrawal of the complaint justify quashing the conviction and acquitting the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Jagannath, filed a criminal revision seeking to set aside his conviction under Section 498-A IPC. The court first allowed the addition of the informant‑wife as a respondent. The parties submitted a compromise agreement wherein they would obtain a mutual‑consent divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the informant would receive Rs.7 lakhs as full and final maintenance, of which Rs.2 lakhs had already been paid. On the basis of this settlement, the informant withdrew the complaint and asked for the earlier criminal orders to be quashed. The court allowed the revision, quashed the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, and acquitted the applicant, while reserving the right to reopen the matter if the compromise is breached.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal conviction under Section 498-A IPC can be set aside on the ground of a mutual settlement and withdrawal of the complaint by the informant.
Whether the amendment to add the informant‑wife as a respondent is permissible in a revision proceeding.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(B)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 498-A

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 498-A
mutual consent divorce
Hindu Marriage Act
maintenance settlement
quash order
acquittal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41369
                                                   (1)                 922crirevn18.19




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     922 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2019
                                    Jagannath S/o. Mahadeo Pawar
                                                                           ….Applicant
                                                 VERSUS

                                       The State Of Maharashtra
                                                                          …..Respondent


                Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Applicant
                Mr. N. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Respondent -wife
                Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for the respondents/State

                                         CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                            DATE : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                PER COURT :

                1.           Mr. Tungar, learned Advocate states that the informant is

                not party in this matter. Therefore, he seeks leave to add the

                informant-wife as Respondent.

                2.           Leave is granted.

                3.           Amendment be carried out forthwith.

                4.           The learned Advocate for the parties have tendered a

                copy of the compromise terms duly signed by them before this Court.

                As per the said compromise terms the informant has decided not to

                prosecute the Applicant and to withdraw the complaint. The parties

                have settled their dispute and arrived at settlement as follows:


                                                                                   1 of 3
                                   (2)                922crirevn18.19




            “The Applicant and the informant have decided to get
            divorce by filing mutual consent under Section 13(B) of
            the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Court at
            Beed. The informant has decided to accept the offer of
            Rs.7 lakhs towards full and final maintenance and
            alimony and out of that Rs.2 lakhs he has already
            transferred   to   her       account   No.43860100004413
            maintained by her in the bank of Baroda on 03-09-2026
            itself. The parties have also decided that the remaining
            amount of Rs.5 lakhs would be paid within period of
            twenty four months.”

5.          Since the parties have compromised the dispute between

themselves, the informant is having no objection to quash and set

aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Beed in RCC No.137/2014 dated 31-03-2015 as well as

the judgment and order dated 22-04-2015 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Appeal No. 57/2015.

6.          In view of the aforesaid settlement, the instant Revision

Application is allowed.

7.          The judgment and order dated 18-12-2018 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No.

57/2015 thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 31-03-2015

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed in

RCC No. 137/2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Applicant is

                                                                  2 of 3
                                     (3)               922crirevn18.19




acquitted in Crime No.15/2014 registered for the offence under

Section 498-A of the IPC by Police Station, Pimpalner.

8.               The copy of the compromise terms is taken on record and

marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of the identification.

9.               However, it shall be open for the Respondent/Informant

to approach this Court again if there is breach of compromise terms at

the behest of Applicant herein.



                                  [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ]
VishalK/922crirevn18.19




                                                                   3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…