Bombay High Court
SUDAI MANI PERUMAL AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR and charge‑sheet are quashed subject to payment of costs by each party.
Summary
The petitioners, a husband and his relatives, were charged in FIR No. 343 of 2024 for offences under Sections 506, 504, 498‑A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of the IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The wife (Respondent No.2) later filed an affidavit stating that the marriage dispute had been amicably resolved and that she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the charge‑sheet, as the parties were proceeding with a mutual‑consent divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The State, through its APP, also did not oppose the quash but sought exemplary costs. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that continuing criminal prosecution served no useful purpose once the parties had settled, and allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and charge‑sheet subject to payment of costs by each party. The court ordered the parties to deposit the stipulated costs and file a compliance affidavit.
Issues considered
- The FIR and charge‑sheet filed in a matrimonial dispute can be quashed when the parties have settled the dispute and consent to the quash.
- Whether the High Court, under Article 226 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, can intervene to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement and mutual consent.
- The appropriateness of imposing exemplary costs on the parties despite their consent to quash the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 342, 498, 504, 506
Subjects
- matrimonial dispute
- quash FIR
- mutual consent divorce
- Section 528
- Article 226
- exemplary costs
- settlement
- criminal proceedings
- civil‑criminal intersection
Judgment
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2589 OF 2025
Sudai Mani Perumal and Ors … Petitioners
Versus.
State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents
-----
Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal a/w Ms. Shweta Kannan, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Enait Shaikh i/b Adv. K. T. Thomas, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
SHARADA
Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State.
RANGNATH
WAHULE
Digitally signed by
SHARADA
RANGNATH WAHULE
WPSI Kamal Thakare, Vithalwadi Police Station, Thane, is present.
Date: 2026.04.20
15:03:46 +0530
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 8th April 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1-
State and Mr. Enait Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 343 of
2024 dated 30.05.2024, registered with Vitthalwadi Police Station
(impugned FIR), for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 498-
1
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
A, 342, 323, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code or Cr.P.C. and the charge-
sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 1639 of 2024.
3. Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Enait Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submit
that the subject matter of the present Petition is a matrimonial dispute
between Petitioner No.1 (Husband) and Respondent No.2 (Wife). They
submit that, in view of the matrimonial disharmony between Petitioner
No.1 and Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the
police, making allegations against Petitioner No. 1 , father-in-law,
mother-in-law and the brother-in-law. They submit that Petitioner No.1
and Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the matrimonial dispute.
They submit that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have filed
Petition No. A-52 of 2024 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai,
seeking divorce by Mutual Consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending before the Family Court at
Bandra. They submit that, in view of the settlement between Petitioner
No.1 and Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 has given no objection to
the quashing of the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising out of
the impugned FIR, as stated by her in her Affidavit dated 03.04.2026.
They therefore request the quashing of the impugned FIR and the
charge-sheet arising out of it.
2
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
4. The Petitioners are present in court and are identified by their
Advocate Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal. He tenders photostat copies of the
Petitioners’ Identity Cards, which are taken on record and marked with
“X-Colly” for identification.
5. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by her
Advocate Mr. Enait Shaikh. He tenders a photostat copy of Respondent
No.2's Identity Card, which is taken on record and marked with “X-1”
for identification.
6. Mr. Enait Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2,
states that the Affidavit dated 03.04.2026, affirmed by Respondent
No.2 before Notary K C Dwivedi, is placed on record and the same
is marked as “X-2” for identification.
7. Respondent No. 2 states that the impugned FIR was filed by her
on account of the matrimonial dispute with Petitioner No. 1. She states
that since she and Petitioner No. 1 have decided to put an end to their
marriage and have consequently filed divorce proceedings under
Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the entire issue is now
being settled. Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is
filed 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. She therefore does not intend to continue with the criminal
3
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
proceedings and as such, gives her no objection in Affidavit (X-2). She
reiterates her no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
She refers to Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the Affidavit, which are
transcribed verbatim:-
“4. I say that the Petitioner No.1, Mr. Sudai Mani Perumal, my
husband have filed a divorce Petition against me bearing No.1-52 of
2024, before the Hon’ble Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in which
with the indulgence of well wishers and elderly persons a
compromise is arrived between me and the Petitioner No.1 herein
and have filed a consent terms before the Counselor therein.
(Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit- “A” is the copy of consent
terms.)
5. I say that in view of the said consent terms which is drawn
without any duress, coercion or pressure, I have no objection for
dropping / quashing of the FIR No.343 of 2024 registered on
30/05/2024 against all the Petitioners herein by Vitthalwadi Police
Station, for the offences punishable U/s. 506, 504, 498-A, 342, 323,
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also the Charge Sheet in
R.C.C. No.1639/2024 filed on 09/12/2024 pending before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar.
6. I say that I am filing this Affidavit consenting that I have
No Objection if the FIR No.343 of 2024 registered on 30/05/2024
against all the Petitioners herein charging for the offence
punishable U/s. 506, 504, 498-A, 342, 323, r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Charge Sheet in R.C.C. No.1639/2024 filed
on 09/12/2024 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Ulhasnagar, be quashed”.
8. Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal and Mr. Enait Shaikh, state that in
support of their Petition No. A-52 of 2024 for divorce by mutual
consent, the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have filed
4
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
Consent Terms dated 27.03.2026 in the said Petition. They tender a
photostat copy of the Consent Terms dated 27.03.2026, which is taken
on record and marked with “X-3” for identification .
9. Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State, submits that as
the matrimonial dispute between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2
has been amicably resolved and both Petitioner No.1 and Respondent
No.2 have applied for divorce by mutual consent, she does not object to
the quashing of the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising out of it.
However, she submits that the matrimonial dispute was cloaked in
criminality and the police machinery was set in motion. She, therefore,
insists on the imposition of exemplary costs on the parties.
10. Mr. Murugaseelan Perumal and Mr. Enait Shaikh, on instructions
from the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2, state that appropriate
costs would be paid.
11. Considering the facts mentioned above, the submissions of the
learned Advocates for the parties, the nature of the dispute being a
matrimonial dispute, the matter being amicably settled between the
Petitioner No.1 (Husband) and the Respondent No.2 (Wife), the
statements made by the Respondent No.2 before this Court and in the
Affidavit (X-2), the no objection given by Respondent No.2 in her
Affidavit (X-2), as also the mutual settlement disclosed by the parties in
5
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
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 Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab 1,
Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr 2 and Parbatbhai
Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat 3, there is no impediment in
allowing this Petition.
12. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (A), subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- by each of the
Petitioners and Rs. 10,000/- by Respondent No. 2. Payment of costs is a
condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the charge
sheet arising therefrom are quashed.
13. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 shall deposit their
respective costs in the Bank Account mentioned below within three (3)
weeks from today and file the compliance Affidavit along with proof of
deposit, with the Registry of this Court on or before 2nd May 2026.
High Court Law Library
State Bank of India
Branch :- Mumbai Main Branch
1 2012 10 SCC 303
2 2014 6 SCC 466
3 2017 9 SCC 641
6
Sharada
902-WP-2589-2025.doc
Account No.:- 10996686636
ISF Code.:- SBIN0000300
Email.:- [email protected]
14. The Writ Petition No.2589 of 2025 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
7
Sharada
Checking your session…