Bombay High Court

SIRAJ SALIM SAYYED AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court quashed the FIR and closed the criminal proceedings as the matrimonial dispute was a private matter now resolved, and ordered costs to be paid by the parties.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash of FIR No. 0943 of 2023 alleging offences under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504 and 34 of the IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute. The respondent wife submitted an affidavit and consent terms stating the dispute had been amicably resolved and she had no objection to the quashing. The State argued that the case was a private matter masquerading as a criminal case but also sought exemplary costs. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow termination of criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute is private and resolved, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ, quashed the FIR, closed the criminal proceedings, and ordered each party to deposit Rs. 25,000 as costs.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR arising from a private matrimonial dispute can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the consent of the complainant and the resolution of the private dispute justify termination of criminal proceedings.
Whether exemplary costs should be imposed on the parties.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 504

Subjects

Article 226
Section 528
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
quash FIR
matrimonial dispute
private dispute
costs
High Court of Bombay
Maharashtra

Judgment

Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2024

1. Mr. Siraj Salim Sayyed,
Age-31 years, Occ.:Service.

2. Mrs. Shamim Salim Sayyed,
Age-60 years, Occ.:Housewife.

Both are residing at J.P. Road,
Western Railway Colony,
Building No. 196/04, Jawahar Nagar,
Khar East, Mumbai-400 051.

3. Mrs. Zainab Yanus Shaikh,
Age-35 years, Occ.:Housewife,
Residing at Room No. 01,
Ahmed Dawood Chawl,
Marol Church Road, Near Fish Market,
Marol Village, Mumbai-400 059.

4. Mrs. Parveen Sarifuddin Shaikh
D/o. Salim Sayyed,
Age-42 years, Occ.:Housewife.

5. Mr. Sarifuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh,
Age-41 years, Occ.:Service.

Both are residing at Room No. 09,
Nehru Nagar, Golibar Maidan,
Near Shivshakti Building, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai-400 055. ...Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Vakola Police Station).

2. Mrs. Tuba Siraj Sayyed,
Age-25 years, Occ.:Housewife,
Residing at Room No. 09, Bharat Nagar,
Vakola, Bandra (W), Mumbai
(as mentioned in the complaint). ...Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 6
Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

Ms. Vaishali Sawant a/w Mr. Abdul Kalam Shaikh, learned Advocates for
the Petitioners.
All the Petitioners are present in the Court.

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court.
PSI Ms. Dipali Dhalpe (Pairavi) attached to Vakola Police Station is
present in the Court.
__________

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026.

P.C. :

1. Heard Ms. Vaishali Sawant, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the
State/Respondent and Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.

2. This Petition is preferred by the Petitioners under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of the First
Information Report bearing No. 0943 of 2023 dated 28.10.2023
registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A & 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“Impugned FIR”).

3. All the Petitioners are present in the Court along with their
Advocate Ms. Vaishali Sawant. Ms. Vaishali Sawant identifies the
Petitioners and tenders photostat copies of their Aadhar Cards as
photo identity proof, which are taken on record and marked as “X
Colly.” for identification.
Page 2 of 6
Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

4. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court along with her
Advocate Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed. Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed identifies
Respondent No. 2 and tenders photostat copy of Aadhar Card of
Respondent No. 2 as photo identity proof, which is taken on record
and marked as “X-1” for identification.

5. Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed tenders Affidavit dated 27.02.2026
affirmed by Respondent No. 2 before the Assistant Registrar of this
Court. Same is taken on record and marked as “X-2” for
identification. Consent Terms dated 27.02.2026 signed by
Petitioner No. 1 & Respondent No. 2 are taken on record and
marked as “X-3” for identification. Respondent No. 2, who is
present in the Court, states that she has filed the said Affidavit
dated 27.02.2026 (X-2) out of her own free will and without any
pressure, force or coercion from any person. She states that the
contents of Affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She states that she
has signed the Consent Terms (X-3) with Petitioner No. 1. She
reiterates that the dispute between her and the Petitioners is
amicably resolved, as such she gives No Objection for quashing of
the criminal proceedings initiated at her instance.

6. Ms. Vaishali Sawant and Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed submit that
the dispute, which is a subject matter of the impugned FIR, was on
account of the matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No. 1
(Husband) & Respondent No. 2 (Wife). They submit that it was on
account of the said dispute that Petitioner No. 1 and all his family
members were dragged into the said dispute. They by relying on
the Affidavit (X-2) and Consent Terms (X-3) submit that Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved the
Page 3 of 6
Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

matrimonial dispute between them and have decided to separate
from each other. They submit that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent
No. 2 are separated by way of a divorce in terms of their religious
law. They submit that Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw
all criminal proceedings filed by her against the Petitioners. They
therefore request that the criminal proceedings may not be
continued and the same be quashed.

7. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent
submits that the matrimonial dispute has given a cloak of criminal
case. She however submits that the parties having now resolved
their dispute as per the statements made by Respondent No. 2 in
the Affidavit (X-2) in paragraph nos. 1 to 6 and the contents of
paragraph nos. (a) to (k) in Consent Terms (X-3), no purpose
would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. She
therefore submits that the impugned FIR and the criminal
proceedings arising out of the said FIR be quashed. She states that
the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have used the police
machinery to settle a private dispute as such, she insists for
imposition of exemplary costs on the parties.

8. Ms. Vaishali Sawant, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and
Mr. Mohd. Idris Javed, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, on
instructions from the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2, who are
present in the Court, state that appropriate cost would be paid.

9. Considering the facts placed before me, the nature of the
dispute being a matrimonial dispute essentially between Petitioner
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, which now stands amicably resolved

Page 4 of 6
Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

amongst themselves, as stated by Ms. Vaishali Sawant and Mr.
Mohd. Idris Javed and the statements made on oath by Respondent
No. 2 in the Affidavit (X-2) & the Consent Terms (X-3), no useful
purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to
continue. Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v/s. The State of Punjab
and Another1, Narinder Singh and Others v/s. State of Punjab and
Another2 and Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai
Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. 3, there is no
impediment to allow this Criminal Writ Petition.

10. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (i) subject to payment of cost of Rs.
50,000/- by the parties as condition precedent. Consequently, the
impugned FIR bearing No. 0943 of 2023 dated 28.10.2023
registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, is quashed against
the Petitioners. Criminal proceedings against the Petitioners arising
out of the impugned FIR are closed.

11. Petitioners shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the following
account within a period of 2 weeks from today and furnish proof of
deposit before the Registry of this Court by filing an Affidavit of
compliance on or before 23.03.2026 :-

Bank Name : Axis Bank Limited
Branch Name : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai-400
025

1. (2012)10 Supreme Court Cases 303.
2. (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466.
3. (2017) 9 SCC 641.
Page 5 of 6
Gitalaxmi 29-WP-1057-2024.doc

Account Name : Central Police Welfare Fund, Director
General MS, Mumbai
Account Number : 914010029005759
IFSC Code : UTIB0000060

12. Respondent No. 2 shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the
following account within a period of 2 weeks from today and
furnish proof of deposit before the Registry of this Court by filing
an Affidavit of compliance on or before 23.03.2026 :-

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai
Account No.: 000120110001337
Bank : Bank of India
Branch : Mumbai Main
IFSC Code : BKID0000001

13. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 is disposed of in the
above said terms.

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]

Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.03.09
08:26:35 +0530

Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…