Bombay High Court
ROHIT VILAS KAMBLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that, given the amicable settlement and the complainant’s consent, it may quash the FIR and charge‑sheet under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the in‑laws of the complainant, filed two criminal writ petitions invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita to quash an FIR and charge‑sheet filed under Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged dowry cruelty. The complainant, who is also the wife of one petitioner, submitted an affidavit stating that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled and that she has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings, intending to file a mutual‑consent divorce. The Court noted that the alleged offence is neither heinous nor anti‑social and arose from a domestic dispute, and that continuing prosecution would be unnecessary and contrary to the ends of justice. Relying on the settlement and the complainant’s consent, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and the charge‑sheet. Both writ petitions were allowed and the matters were disposed of without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR and charge‑sheet when the parties have settled the dispute.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence (dowry cruelty) warrants continuation of criminal prosecution despite a settlement.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 85
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- quash FIR
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 85 BNS
- dowry cruelty
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- mutual consent divorce
Judgment
(1) 33criwp731.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VISHAL
RAM CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.731 OF 2026
KAMBLE
1. Shiladevi Vilas Kamble,
Digitally signed Age-54 Years, Occu-Housewife,
by VISHAL
RAM KAMBLE
Date: 2. Vilas Tukaram Kamble,
2026.09.19 Age-58 years, Occu-Retired,
15:46:05 +0530
3. Hrushikesh Vilas Kamble,
Age-24 Years, Occu-Education,
4. Ragini Vaibhav Sanade,
Age-27 years, Occu-Education,
R/o. Vathar Tarf Vadgaon,
Datta Colony, Tq. Hatkanangale,
Dist. Kolhapur
5. Sushil Ravikant Jivraskar,
Age-43 Years, Occu-Service,
R/o. Samrat Ashok Nagar,
Vithar Tarf Vadgaon,
Tq. Hatkanangle, Dist. Kolhapur ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Vadgaon Police Station
2. Pradnya Rohit Kamble,
C/o. Masaji Pandurang Kamble,
House No. 725, Bouddha Vasahat
Mhaisal Tq. Miraj, Dist. Sangli
Maharashtra Pin-416 409 ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. D. S. Sonarlikar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. Abid A. Sayyad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
1 of 6
(2) 33criwp731.26.odt
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 736 OF 2026
1. Rohit Vilas Kamble,
Age-28 years, Occu-Service,
R/o. Vathar Tarf Vadgaon,
Datta Colony, Tq. Hatkanangle,
Dist. Kolhapur ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Vadgaon Police Station,
3. Pradnya Rohit Kamble,
C/o. Masaji Pandurang Kamble,
House No. 725, M. Buddha Vasahat,
Mhaisal Tq. Miraj, Dist. Sangli, ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. D. S. Sonarlikar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. Abid A. Sayyad, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the
Petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioners in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 731 of 2026 are the in-laws, and the Petitioner in
Criminal Writ Petition No.736 of 2026 is the husband of Respondent
No. 2 / Original Complainant.
2 of 6
(3) 33criwp731.26.odt
4. The Petitioners in both the Petitions have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita [for short ‘the BNSS’] to quash the FIR
bearing C. R. No. 0628/2025 registered at Vadgaon Police Station,
Kolhapur on 06-12-2025 [for short ‘FIR’] for the offence punishable
under Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita [for short ‘the BNS’].
5. Learned Advocates for the Petitioners and learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that the
matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Accordingly,
they agreed to file divorce proceedings by mutual consent before the
learned Civil Judge Senior Division [for short ‘ CJSD’]. Therefore,
Respondent No. 2, the original complainant, does not wish to proceed
further with the prosecution. Accordingly, she has filed an affidavit
dated 17-09-2026 before the Court affirming that the matter has been
amicably settled between them. Therefore, she has given no objection
to quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/s.
6. In brief, the facts are that the marriage of the Petitioner in
WP/736/2026 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 17-05-2025.
The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law, Petitioner No. 3 is
the brother-in-law, Petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law, and Petitioner
No. 5 is the uncle-in-law of Respondent No. 2 in WP No. 731/2026.
3 of 6
(4) 33criwp731.26.odt
Due to matrimonial discord, on 06-12-2025 Respondent No. 2 lodged
a report against the Petitioners in both petitions at Vadgaon Police
Station, Kolhapur, alleging that they subjected her to cruelty on
account of dowry demands. Based on the said complaint, an offence
was registered against them as referred to above. Based on the FIR,
the police conducted an investigation. After completing the
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet.
Aggrieved by the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet, the Petitioners
have preferred these Petitions.
7. During the pendency of these Petitions, the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties. Accordingly, the Petitioner
in Cri. WP/736/2026 and Respondent No. 2 have agreed to file
divorce proceedings by mutual consent before the learned CJSD.
8. Today, Respondent No. 2, the complainant, appeared
before the court and filed an affidavit sworn on 17-09-2026 wherein
she has asserted that she and Petitioner /Husband agreed to file
divorce proceedings by mutual consent before the learned CJSD, as
the matter has been amicably settled between them. Therefore, she has
no objection to quashing the FIR and the proceedings bearing R.C.C.
No. 226/2026 pending before the learned JMFC, Vadgaon.
4 of 6
(5) 33criwp731.26.odt
9. Respondent No. 2 with her parents is present in the court.
The learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 identified her. She
admitted that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct and also
gave no objection to quash the FIR and proceedings.
10. Thus, it seems that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties. Pursuant to the settlement, Respondent No. 2
gave her no objection to quash the FIR and pendency of the
proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 226/2026 against the Petitioners.
Moreover, the nature of the offence is neither heinous nor anti-social,
but the same arose out of a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, in my
view, there is no reason to continue with the prosecution.
11. In the wake of the above discussion, it would be
appropriate to allow both the Petitions in terms of settlement, as it
would not cause prejudice to the parties. In the light of the above, I am
satisfied that a case is made out to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the
process of law. Hence, I pass the following order.
12. Both Criminal Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer
clause-A, which reads as under.
“a] That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ
thereby quashing and setting aside the First Information
Report dated 06-12-2025 C. R. No. 628 of 2025 lodged
5 of 6
(6) 33criwp731.26.odt
by Respondent No. 2 herein with Respondent No.1 herein,
as well as the charge-sheet/final report which is filed by
the concerned Investigating Officer on 25 June 2026.”
13. The Rule is made absolute in both the Petitions.
14. Both Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]
VishalK/33criwp731.26.odt
6 of 6
Checking your session…