Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANDEEP VINOD TANNAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is allowed and FIR No. 19/2026 is quashed by mutual consent of the parties.

Summary

The petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), sought to quash FIR No. 19/2026 registered against the petitioner, a son, on allegations under sections 118(2), 333 and 115(2) of the BNSS. The mother and son had resolved their dispute and both appeared before the court, requesting a mutual consent quash. The court, after hearing counsel, warned the son against any future harassment of his mother and directed the local police to send a lady officer monthly for a year to monitor any complaints. Accepting the parties' consent, the court allowed the petition and ordered the FIR to be quashed. The petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether FIR No. 19/2026 filed under sections 118(2), 333 and 115(2) of the BNSS can be quashed by mutual consent of the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quash FIR
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Section 528
  • mutual consent
  • domestic harassment
  • police monitoring

Judgment

                                                                       36. CRI WP 4821-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4821 OF 2026

           Sandeep Vinod Tanna                                       .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                               .. Respondents
                                     ....................
            Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay, Advocate for Petitioner
            Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
            Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
            PSI Sonawane, Pairavi Officer, Kandivali Police Station
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Upadhyay, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms.

           Talhar, learned APP for State and Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik

           Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking to quash FIR No.

           19/2026 registered with Kandivali Police Station.


           3.       The dispute between the parties before the Court who are

           mother and son stands resolved. Without delineating the dispute at

           the request made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it

           would be worthwhile if the present proceedings are quashed since the




                                                                                       1 of 3
                                                           36. CRI WP 4821-26.odt


son and the mother both are before the Court and the mother has

persuaded the Court to allow the present Petition by consent quashing.


4.    I have interacted with the Petitioner son and warned him that

henceforth, if any such dereliction of physical harm to his mother

happens on his part, he will have to be dealt with strictly and sternly.

In that view of the matter, I pass a direction to the local jurisdictional

Police Station where the mother/complainant and her son are residing

in the same building to depute a lady police officer to visit the mother

on the first Sunday of every month for a period of one year and

inquire with the mother who is the complainant about whether she is

facing any harassment or trouble from the Petitioner-son herein. They

both reside in the same building but on different floors as informed to

me. If the Complainant complains about any harassment meted out to

her by her son after passing of this order, the police is directed to

record an appropriate complaint and take immediate action against

the Petitioner-son.


5.    In view of the above and along with the above directions and at

the request made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties

who are present in Court, the Petition stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (a), which reads thus:-

     "a.     The Hon'ble court be pleased to called paper and proceeding of FIR
             No 19/2026 registered in Kandivali Police station against petitioner
             on report of respondent no 2 original informer, U/S 118 (2), 333,

                                                                           2 of 3
                                                                             36. CRI WP 4821-26.odt


                                 115 (2) of BNS and verify the correctness be pleased to quash FIR
                                 No 19/2026 against petitioner U/S 118 (2), 333, 115 (2) of BNS
                                 and or quash by mutual consent of petitioner and respondent no 2."


           6.       Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                     [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]


                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.09.23
                      10:51:01
                      +0530




                                                                                             3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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