Bombay High Court

KISAN DEVRAM GAFALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court held that when an adult complainant settles the dispute and refuses to cooperate, continuing the criminal prosecution would constitute misuse of the process of law, warranting the quashing of the FIR and the pending case.

Summary

The petitioner, Kisan, filed a criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of FIR No.0250/2025 and the pending Sessions Case No.69 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 64, 329(1), 329(3), 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, respondent No.2, filed an affidavit stating that the parties had settled the dispute and she did not wish to pursue the case or give evidence. The State opposed the quash, arguing that settlement could not override the seriousness of the offences and that the FIR was filed by the State. The Court examined the affidavit, noted that both parties were adults and that proceeding without the complainant’s cooperation would amount to misuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing both the FIR and the Sessions case, and ordered the parties to deposit costs. The order also directed the costs to be transferred to a cancer hospital.

Issues considered

Whether a settlement between an adult complainant and the accused, coupled with the complainant’s refusal to testify, is sufficient ground to quash an FIR and pending criminal proceedings under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 329(1), 329(3), 351(2), 352, 64

Subjects

settlement
quashing FIR
misuse of process
criminal writ petition
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
adult complainant
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21971
Criminal Writ Petition No.649/2026
:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2026

Kisan s/o Devram Gafale ….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ….Respondents

.......
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. R.K. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
Mr. U.S. Mote, Advocate for R.No.2
....…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
VACATION COURT
DATE : 22nd MAY, 2026

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of

F.I.R. bearing No.0250/2025, registered with Ghargaon City Police

Station, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar for the offences

punishable under Sections 64, 329(1), 329(3), 352, 351(2) of the

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Sessions Case No.69 of 2025

pending before the learned Additional Session Judge, Sangamner,
Criminal Writ Petition No.649/2026
:: 2 ::

District Ahmednagar.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on

15/5/2026, the respondent No.2 has appeared in the matter and

filed affidavit-in-reply, in which she has stated that, during the

pendency of the petition, the family members from both the sides

have settled the dispute and she does not want to proceed with the

above mentioned F.I.R. She has further stated that, she is not

interest to give evidence against the petitioner.

4. Learned A.P.P. strongly opposed for quashing of the F.I.R.,

by contending othat the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the

complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and there are serious

allegations. He further submits that, though the petitioner and

respondent No.2 have arrived at settlement, the same cannot be a

ground for quashing of the F.I.R. as the complaint is filed by the

State and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 is

nothing but abuse of process of law and Court by the petitioner and

respondent No.2 and considering the seriousness of the offence, this

Court may not interfere in the matter.

5. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Criminal Writ Petition No.649/2026
:: 3 ::

and respondent No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State and after

having gone through the copy of the F.I.R., I find that, though there

are allegations against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is major

and the petitioner is also major. Now the respondent No.2 has filed

affidavit-in-reply by contending that the matter is settled between

them and she does not want to proceed with the matter.

Considering the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2, even

if this Court dismisses the present petition and even if the trial is

proceeded, the respondent No.2 is not going to support the

prosecution case before the Trial Court and as such, it would

amount to misuse of the process of law and Court. In view thereof,

I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition. Hence the order :

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses (B) and (C), which read thus :

(B) The rule may kindly be made absolute by allowing this
Criminal Writ petition, thereby quashing and setting aside First
Information Report bearing No.0250 of 2025,
dated11.08.2025 registered with Ghargaon City Police Station,
Ghargaon, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 64,
329(1), 329(3), 352, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 against the present petitioner.

Criminal Writ Petition, thereby quashing and setting aside
Sessions Case No.69 of 2025 pending before the learned
Additional Session Judge, Sangamner and the order dated
03/01/2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Sangamner in R.C.C. No.695/2025.

(ii) Petitioner and respondent No.2 shall deposit costs of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) by each of them

in this Court within a period of two weeks from today.

After deposit of the amount of costs, the same be

transmitted to Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

fmp/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…