Bombay High Court
RAHUL VASANT BHOI AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the FIR and the pending criminal proceeding must be quashed as the complainant consented and the dispute was settled, and continuation would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 434/2023 and the related criminal proceeding RCC No. 337/2023 for alleged offences under Sections 324, 504 and 34 of the IPC. The complainant, Dhanaji Yashwant Mali, filed an affidavit stating that the dispute with the petitioners had been amicably settled and he had no objection to the quashing of the FIR and the case. The court noted that the injuries were simple, no weapon was used, and the matter was a private dispute without broader social impact. Relying on the complainant’s consent and the settlement, the court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under CrPC s.482, the court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet and the pending criminal proceeding, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR and criminal proceeding can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court under CrPC s.482 when the complainant consents and the dispute is settled.
- Whether the alleged offences under IPC Sections 324, 504 and 34 warrant continuation of prosecution despite the settlement.
- Whether proceeding with the case would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Police Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Constitution of India — s. 226, 227
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 324, 34, 504
Subjects
- quash FIR
- criminal proceeding
- settlement
- abuse of process
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- CrPC s.482
- writ jurisdiction
- private dispute
Judgment
907-WP-718-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2026
1. Rahul Vasant Bhoi ]
Age: 51 years, Occupation:Service, ]
Address - Borgaon, Taluka - Walwa, ]
District – Sangli - 415 413 ]
2. Ravindra Shankar Sutar ]
Age: 57 years, Occupation: Agriculture, ]
Address – Borgaon, Taluka – Walwa, ]
Digitally
signed by District – Sangli – 415413 ] Petitioners
SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
2026.09.15 versus
18:25:22
+0530
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Police Inspector of ]
Islampur Police Station, Islampur, ]
District: Sangli) 415 409. ]
2. Dhanaji Yashwant Mali ]
Age-47 Years, Occupation – Agriculture, ]
R/o – Shivaji Chowk, Borgaon, ]
Taluka – Walwa, District – Sangli 415413 ] Respondents
…..
Mr. Umesh H. Pawar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Deokar, A.P.P., for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Shivprasad Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Gunje, Head Constable, Ishwarpur Police Station, present.
…..
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
Shailaja Page 1 of 5
907-WP-718-2026.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, as well as the learned
APP for Respondent No. 1 – State.
2. The Petitioners seek to quashing the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 434
of 2023 registered with Islampur Police Station, District Sangli as also the
consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., bearing R.C.C. No.
337 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Islampur, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”).
3. On 11th July 2023, a quarrel took place between the Petitioners
and Respondent No.2. During the quarrel, Petitioner No.2 caught hold of the
collar/neck of Respondent No.2 and scuffled with him, and Petitioner No.1
gave a fist blow near the left eye to Respondent No.2 and caused a bleeding
injury near the eye. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 lodged a report against
the Petitioners. Based on the said F.I.R., the offence was registered against
the Petitioners.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent No.2
jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the
parties. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit before the
Court, stating that he has no objection to the quashing of the F.I.R. as well as
Shailaja Page 2 of 5
907-WP-718-2026.odt
the criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 337 of 2023, pending against
the Petitioners.
5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners further submits that the injuries
sustained by Respondent No.2 were simple in nature. No weapon was used
by the Petitioners and, therefore, Section 324 of the I.P.C. has been wrongly
applied against the Petitioners by the Investigating Officer. He has drawn my
attention to the medical certificate of Respondent No.2 (complainant). On
perusal of the said medical certificate, it appears that Respondent No.2 had
sustained two simple injuries.
6. Today, Respondent No.2 – original Complainant is present
before the Court. He admits that he filed an Affidavit dated 14 th August 2026
before this Court and states that its contents are true and correct and that he
gave free and valid consent. He further categorically states before the Court
that he does not wish to proceed against the Petitioners, as the dispute
between the parties has been amicably settled. He, therefore, has no objection
to quashing of the F.I.R. as well as the proceedings arising therefrom and
pending before the learned Trial Court.
7. In the light of the affidavit and the facts and circumstances of
the case, it appears that Respondent No.2 has no objection to quashing of the
F.I.R. as well as the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court
against the Petitioners. It further appears that Respondent No.2 resides in
Shailaja Page 3 of 5
907-WP-718-2026.odt
front of the house of the Petitioner No.2. The dispute between them has been
amicably settled. Besides, the offences alleged against the Petitioners cannot
be termed as heinous or anti-social or as having a serious impact on society at
large. The dispute essentially arises from a private dispute between two
individuals, which the parties have now amicably settled.
8. In view of the nature of the dispute, the settlement arrived at
between the parties, and the fact that Respondent No.2 has no objection to
the quashing of the F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings, I am of the
considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against them would
amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of
justice. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this is a fit case for
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
9. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (c), which read thus:
a) This Hon'ble Court, by exercising the writ jurisdiction
vested in it u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, u/s 528 of
B.N.S.S. read with Art. 226 of the Constitution of India be pleased
to quash and set aside F.I.R. having C.R. No. 434/2023 registered
with Islampur Police Station, District- Sangli for the offence
punishable under Sections 324, 504 & 34 of I.P.C;
b) This Hon'ble Court, by exercising the writ jurisdiction
vested in it u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, u/s 528 of
B.N.S.S. read with Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, be pleased
Shailaja Page 4 of 5
907-WP-718-2026.odt
to quash and set aside Charge Sheet No. 249 of 2023 and Criminal
Proceeding having number RCC No. 337 of 2023 pending before
the Ld. J.M.F.C. at Islampur;
c) This Hon'ble Court, by exercising the writ jurisdiction
vested in it u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Art.
227 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to quash and set aside
the Issue Process order dated 17.8.2023 passed by Ld. J.M.F.C. at
Islampur in RCC No. 337 of 2023 against the Petitioners;
10. The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
11. The Petition is disposed of.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Shailaja Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…