Bombay High Court

ARUL SOMKUWAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The writ petition is allowed and the FIR dated 19/01/2026 is quashed.

Summary

The petitioners, college students, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quash of FIR No. 41 of 2026 registered for offences under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66E of the IT Act. The alleged incident was a misunderstanding that the parties amicably resolved, and the victims filed a joint affidavit stating they have no objection to the FIR being quashed. The State’s Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the quash. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow dismissal of criminal proceedings where there is no public interest and the parties have settled, allowed the petition and ordered the FIR to be quashed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR can be quashed under Article 226 and Section 528 of the BNSS when the complainant and accused have settled the dispute.
Whether the settlement between college‑going parties bars continuation of criminal prosecution under Section 356 BNSS and Section 66E IT Act.
Whether the Supreme Court decisions cited are applicable to permit quashing of the FIR.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 356
Information Technology Act — s. 66E

Subjects

quash of FIR
settlement of criminal dispute
Article 226
Section 528 BNSS
Section 356 BNSS
Section 66E IT Act
joint affidavit
public interest

Judgment

10-WP-400-2026.doc

GAYATRI
Digitally signed
by GAYATRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA SHIMPI
SHIMPI Date: 2026.02.05
20:06:43 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2026

Arul Somkuwar & Anr. … Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
----

Mr. Madan Gupta a/w Ms. Priti Jain, Advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is preferred against the FIR

bearing C. R. No. 41 of 2026 dated 19/01/2026 registered with

the Shivaji Park Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable

under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66E

of the Information Technology Act.

2. Petitioners are present in Court along with their

Advocate Mr. Madan Gupta. Photostat copies of the identity card of

Gayatri shimpi 1
10-WP-400-2026.doc

the Petitioners tendered are taken on record and marked as ‘X

colly’ for identification.

3. Respondent No. 2 (Complainant), Respondent No. 3 &

4 (Victims) are present along with their Advocate Mr. Akhilesh

Yadav. Photostat copies of their identity card are taken on record

and marked as ‘X-1 colly’ for identification.

4. Mr. Madan Gupta and Mr. Akhilesh Yadav submit that

the Petitioners and Respondents are college students. They submit

that a fun incident turned, resulted into filling of a complaint, out

of sheer misunderstanding. They submit that Petitioners and

Respondents have amicably resolved. They submit the

Respondents have no objection for quashing of the Impugned FIR.

5. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are

present in Court submit that they regret the incident and they now

intend to concentrate on their studies.

6. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, tenders a joint affidavit of

Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 affirmed by them before Notary Shane

Cardoz on 2nd February, 2026, same is taken on record and marked

Gayatri shimpi 2
10-WP-400-2026.doc

as ‘X-2’ for identification. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 state that

they have filed the affidavit out of their own free will and without

any pressure from anyone. They reiterate the statements made in

the affidavit ‘X-2’ .

7. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State

submits that the Petitioners and Respondents being college

students having amicably resolved the matter it would be in their

interest to quash the criminal proceedings. He submits that the

criminal proceedings which are subject matter of the present

Petition be quashed.

8. Considering the above said factual situation, the

Petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being college

students and the statements made by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4

in the affidavit as ‘X-2’, no purpose would be served in continuing

with the criminal proceedings. Having regard to the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V. State of

Punjab1, Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur

and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Anr2, Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
2 (2017) 9 SCC 641

Gayatri shimpi 3
10-WP-400-2026.doc

State of Punjab & Anr.3 there is no impediment for allowing this

Petition.

9. Writ Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer

clause (A). Consequently, the FIR bearing No. 41 of 2023

registered with Shivaji Park Police Station, Mumbai is quashed.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

3 (2014) 6 SCC 466

Gayatri shimpi 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…