Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIVEK VITTHAL SOMANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that, in view of the settlement and the complainant’s affidavit, the FIR and the pending criminal proceedings are quashed under Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act.

Summary

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to obtain the FIR (No. 334 of 2023) and to have it quashed, alleging that the matrimonial dispute with the complainant (Respondent No.2) had been amicably resolved and that she no longer wished to pursue criminal action. Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit before the court stating the settlement and her desire not to prosecute. The State agreed that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and the provisions of Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act, the court held that the FIR and the pending charge‑sheet could be quashed. Consequently, the FIR and the charge‑sheet were set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were closed. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether an FIR can be quashed on the ground of settlement between the parties and an affidavit by the complainant.
  • Whether Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in such circumstances.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy for obtaining the quashment of the FIR.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quashment of FIR
  • settlement of matrimonial dispute
  • Section 528
  • Bombay Police Act
  • mandamus
  • IPC 322
  • IPC 498A
  • IPC 504
  • consent divorce

Judgment

Gitalaxmi                                                                   927-WP-3636-2025.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3636 OF 2025

            Mr. Vivek Vitthal Soman                                 ...Petitioner

                     Versus

            The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                       ...Respondents
                                         __________

            Mr. Suchit Chaudhary (Through VC) a/w Mr. Pritam Aherkar, learned
            Advocates for the Petitioner.
            Petitioner is present in the Court.

            Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
            Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court.
            Mr. Shantanu H. Katkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
                                                __________

                                         CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                         DATE : 17th JANUARY 2026.

            P.C. :


            1.       Heard Mr. Suchit Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the
            Petitioner,       Mr.    Prasanna     Malshe,       learned   A.P.P.    for    the
            State/Respondent and Mr. Shantanu Katkar, learned Advocate for
            Respondent No. 2.


            2.       By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought for the
            following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause 10(a) :-


                 “a. that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
                 Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order and/or
                 direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby calling for the
                 records and proceedings concerning FIR No. 334 of 2023
                 registered by the Respondent No. 2 for alleged offences
                 punishable under Sections 322, 498A & 504 of the Indian
                                                  Page 1 of 3
Gitalaxmi                                                         927-WP-3636-2025.doc


                 Penal Code, 1860 and after examining the legality, validity
                 and propriety of the impugned F.I.R., be further pleased to
                 quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 334 of 2023
                 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station.”

            3.    Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court along with her
            Advocate Mr. Shantanu Katkar. Mr. Shantanu Katkar submits that
            the matrimonial discord between the Petitioner and Respondent
            No. 2 is resolved.      He tenders Affidavit dated 17.01.2026 of
            Respondent No. 2 executed before the Notary Advocate S. N.
            Dhanage, Mumbai. Same is taken on record and marked as “X” for
            identification. Respondent No. 2 states that the Affidavit (X) has
            been filed by her out of her own free will and without any pressure
            or coercion from any person.        She states that the contents of
            paragraph Nos. 1 to 16 of the Affidavit (X) are as per her say. She
            states that she has resolved the issue amicably with the Petitioner
            and decided to file proceeding for seeking divorce. She states that
            considering the subsequent events and the matrimonial dispute
            being resolved, she does not intend to pursue/prosecute the
            criminal proceedings.


            4.    Petitioner, who is present in the Court states that the
            matrimonial dispute with Respondent No. 2 is amicably resolved
            and he and Respondent No. 2 have decided to obtain divorce by
            consent.


            5.    Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent
            submits that in view of the statements made by Respondent No. 2
            before this Court and her statements in the Affidavit (X), no
            purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal

                                           Page 2 of 3
Gitalaxmi                                                                  927-WP-3636-2025.doc


            proceedings. He therefore submits that the impugned FIR and the
            criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of statement
            made by Respondent No. 2 in the Affidavit (X).


            6.     Considering the facts as placed before me, the nature of
            dispute, the settlement arrived between the parties, the statements
            made on oath by Respondent No. 2 (Affidavit at X) and guided by
            the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
            Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others
            Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.1, to secure ends of justice I deem it fit
            and proper to exercise powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to
            quash the criminal proceedings.


            7.     Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
            Consequently First Information Report No. 334 of 2023 dated
            30.05.2023 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune
            City for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 of
            the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the charge-sheet bearing Regular
            Criminal Complaint No. 2952/2023 pending before the Judicial
            Magistrate First Class at Pune, are quashed. Criminal proceedings
            against the Petitioner arising out of the said FIR and charge-sheet
            are closed.


            8.     Criminal Writ Petition No. 3636 of 2025 is disposed of. No
            order as to costs.




                                                            [ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]
                                  GITALAXMI
                                  KRISHNA
                                  KOTAWADEKAR
            1 (2017) 9 SCC 641.
                                  Digitally signed by Page 3 of 3
                                  GITALAXMI KRISHNA
                                  KOTAWADEKAR
                                  Date: 2026.01.31
                                  17:25:51 +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.