JIGNESH ASHOKBHAI LUMBHANI ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

            Digitally signed
            by LAXMIKANT
            GOPAL
LAXMIKANT   CHANDAN                                                             (927) WP-2297.26.DOC
GOPAL       Date:
CHANDAN     2026.05.07
            19:57:42
            +0530
                                                                                                lgc

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2297 OF 2026

                               Jignesh Ashokbhai Lumbhani and ors.           : Petitioners.
                                     Versus.
                               State of Maharashtra and anr.                 : Respondents.
                                                       -----
                               Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Senior Advocate a/w Advocates Sangeeta
                               Salvi and Pooja Chettiar for the Petitioners.
                               Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for the Respondent/State.
                               Ms. Neeta Parekh a/w Advocate Sandeep for Respondent
                               No.2.
                                                       -------

                                                     CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                                         DATED :      30 APRIL 2026
                               PC:-

                               1.     Heard Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Advocate for
                               the Petitioners, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the
                               Respondent/State and Ms. Neeta Parekh, learned Advocate for
                               Respondent No.2.

                               2.     This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                               India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
                               Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR
                               bearing 408 of 2021 dated 07 October 2021, registered with
                               Bhayandar Police Station (impugned FIR), for offences
                               punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the
                               Indian    Penal    Code     and       the   charge-sheet    bearing



                                                                 1
                                             (927) WP-2297.26.DOC


RCC/1873/2025, pending before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Mira Bhayandar, Thane.

3.   Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Advocate, for the
Petitioners and Ms. Neeta Parekh, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2, submit that the subject matter of the
impugned FIR is a matrimonial dispute between Petitioner
No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2 (wife). They submit
that the matrimonial dispute between the Petitioners and
Respondent No.2 has been amicably resolved. They submit
that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have been granted
a divorce by mutual consent by the Family Court, Thane, in
Marriage Petition No. A-655/2022. They further submit that,
in view of the amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute,
Respondent No.2 has no grievance against the Petitioners and
has, by the Affidavit dated 29 April 2026, given her no
objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. They
therefore request the quashing of the impugned FIR and the
charge-sheeting arising therefrom.

4.   Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 appears through V.C. Petitioner
Nos. 1 and 3 are present in the Court. Petitioners are
identified by Ms. Seema Sarnaik. She tenders the Photostat
copies of the Petitioners’ Identity Cards, which are taken on
record and marked as “X-Colly” for identification.

5.   Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is
identified by her Advocate Ms Neeta Parekh. She tenders the



                               2
                                               (927) WP-2297.26.DOC


Photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card, which is
taken on record and marked as “X-1” for identification.

6.    Ms. Neeta Parekh, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 29 April 2026 affirmed by
Respondent No.2 before the Notary P. S. Gujar, Greater
Mumbai is placed on record, the same is marked with “X-2”
for identification.

7.    Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and states that the
matrimonial dispute between her and the Petitioners is
amicably resolved. She states that she is separated from
Petitioner No. 1. She states that she now wants to live a
peaceful life and therefore does not intend to continue with
the criminal proceedings, as such she has given her no
objection by the Affidavit (X-2). She states that she will not be
supporting the prosecution case. She states that the said
Affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without
any pressure or coercion from any person. She states that the
contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. Respondent
No. 2, therefore, requests the quashing of the impugned FIR
and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

8.    Mr.    Sukanta    Karmakar,    learned    APP     for    the
Respondent/State, submits that since the matrimonial dispute
between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 has been
resolved, Respondent No.1 does not object to the request for
quashing the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings
arising therefrom. However, he submits that the matrimonial

                                3
                                             (927) WP-2297.26.DOC


dispute was unnecessarily dragged to the police station,
setting the police machinery in motion, as such, he insists on
the imposition of exemplary costs on the Petitioners as well as
Respondent No.2.

9.    Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioners and Ms. Neeta Parekh, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No.2, on instructions, submit that the appropriate
costs would be paid.

10.   Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the
submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the
matrimonial dispute between the parties being amicably
resolved, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 being
separated by way of divorce, Respondent No.2 giving her no
objection and the statements made by Respondent No.2 in the
Affidavit (X-2), no useful purpose will be served by allowing
the criminal prosecution to continue.

11.   Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab1, Narinder
Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anr 2 and Parbatbhai
Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat3, there is no
impediment in allowing this Petition.

12.   In view of the above, subject to each of the Petitioners
paying costs of Rs.15,000/- and the Respondent No.2 paying

1
      2012 10 SCC 303
2
      2014 6 SCC 466
3
      2017 9 SCC 641


                               4
                                                 (927) WP-2297.26.DOC


costs of Rs.15,000/- Writ Petition No.2297 of 2026 is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (b). Payment of costs is a condition
precedent.   Consequently,    the     impugned     FIR    and     the
Chargesheet arising out of the impugned FIR are quashed.

13.   Each   of   the   Petitioners    shall   deposit    costs    of
Rs.15,000/-, and Respondent No.2 shall deposit costs of
Rs.15,000/- in the Account mentioned below within five
weeks from today and file the compliance affidavit along with
proof of deposit in the Registry of this Court on or before 17 th
June 2026.

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


14.   The Writ Petition No. 2297 of 2026 is disposed of.




                                        (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




                                5