Bombay High Court
ANIKET GURUNATHMHATRE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet, holding that the victim’s consent and settlement of the matrimonial dispute justify termination of the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash of FIR No.101/2024 and chargesheet No.77/2024 relating to alleged offences under Sections 498A, 377, 506 and 406 r/w 34 IPC. The dispute stemmed from a matrimonial conflict that the parties had resolved, with the wife (Respondent No.2) filing an affidavit stating she had no objection to the criminal proceedings being withdrawn. The State argued that, given the settlement and the victim’s consent, continuation of the case served no purpose, though it sought costs. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that there was no impediment to quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement and the victim’s free‑will affidavit. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed, and costs of Rs.50,000 were ordered to be shared equally between the petitioners and Respondent No.2.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Article 226 and Section 528 when the alleged victim consents and the underlying dispute is settled.
- Whether the settlement of a matrimonial dispute bars the continuation of criminal prosecution for offences under the IPC.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the parties in a petition for quash of FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 377, 406, 498A, 506
Subjects
- Article 226
- Section 528
- quash of FIR
- marital dispute settlement
- mutual consent divorce
- IPC offences
- costs
Judgment
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
LAXMIKANT CHANDAN
GOPAL Date: (905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
CHANDAN 2026.02.23
10:12:03
+0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4790 OF 2024
Aniket Gurunath Mhatre and ors. : Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.
______________________________________________________
Mr. Mayur S Kadam for the Petitioners.
Mr. Prasanna P Malshe, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Jitendra H Oak for the Respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 20 FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Mayur Kadam, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the
Respondent/State and Mr. Jitendra Oak, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
2. This Petition/Application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Petitioners
1
(905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
for quashing the FIR bearing 101 of 2024 registered at Kalyan
Taluka Police Station, Thane Gramin for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 377, 506, 406 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and the Chargesheet bearing No.77 of
2024, registered as Case No.RCC/416/2024), pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan
3. Petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by
their Advocate Mr. Mayur Kadam. He tenders the Photostat
copies of the Identity Cards (three in number) of the
Petitioners, which are taken on record and marked as “X-
Colly” for identification.
4. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is
identified by her Advocate Mr. Jitendra Oak. He tenders the
Photostat copy of Identity Card of Respondent No.2, which is
taken on record and marked as “X-1” for identification.
5. Mr Mayur Kadam, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Jitendra Oak, learned Advocate for the Respondent
2
(905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
No.2, submit that the matrimonial disputes between the
Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are amicably resolved.
They submit that the Petitioner No.1 (husband) and
Respondent No.2 (wife) have decided to separate, and they
have filed proceedings seeking divorce by mutual consent
under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is
pending before the Civil Court. They submit that in view of
the resolution of the disputes, the Respondent No.2 has given
no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
6. Mr. Jitendra Oak, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 20 February 2026
affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary Adv. S N
Dhange, Fort, Mumbai, is placed on record, same is marked as
“X-2” for identification.
7. Respondent No. 2 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. She reiterates her no
3
(905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
8. Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the
Respondent/State submits that the matrimonial disputes
between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 being
resolved and the Respondent No.2 having filed Affidavit (X-2)
giving no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings, no
purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings. He however insists for imposition of costs.
9. Mr. Mayur Kadam, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Jitendra Oak, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, on instructions, submits that the Petitioners and
Respondent No.2 shall deposit appropriate costs.
10. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of
dispute, the matter being settled between the Petitioners and
the Respondent No.2, the statement of Respondent No. 2 in
the Affidavit (X-2) and having regards to the pronouncements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs
4
(905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
State Of Punjab1, Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab
And Anr2 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of
Gujarat3, there is no impediment in allowing this Application.
11. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition No.4790 of
2024 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to
payment of costs of Rs.50000/. Consequently, the impugned
FIR bearing No.101 of 2024 dated 16 February 2024
registered with the Kalyan Taluka Police Station, Thane
Gramin and the Chargesheet bearing No.77 of 2024,
registered as Case No. RCC/416/2024, pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, are quashed.
12. Out of the total costs of Rs.50,000/-, the Petitioners
shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent
No.2 shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the below
mentioned Account within a period of two weeks from today
and file in the Registry of this Court the compliance affidavit
along with the proof of deposit on or before 17 March 2026 :-
1
2012 10 SCC 303
2
2014 6 SCC 466
3
2017 9 SCC 641
5
(905) WP-4790.24.DOCX
Account Name : Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund
Account Number : 90552010165915
Bank Name : Canara Bank
Branch : South Block, Defence Headquarters New Delhi-
110011
IFSC Code : CNRB0019055
13. This Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in the above-said
terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
6
Checking your session…