AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.478/2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered with Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 85, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequent chargesheet No.04/2026, dated 12.01.2026.
Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law and applicant No.5 is the husband of the sister-in-law of non-applicant No.2/complainant. Marriage between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 10.03.2007 at Patiala, Punjab. Out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with twin daughters. On 18.11.2025, non-applicant No.2 lodged a complaint against the applicants alleging that from time to time, the applicants demanded money and silver dinner set from non-applicant No.2 and her father paid the same. In the year 2009-2010, the applicants asked non-applicant No.2 to bring a gold necklace set and Rs.10 Lakhs from her father. On this count, there was an altercation between the applicants and non-applicant No.2. At that time, the applicants abused and assaulted non-applicant No.2. Non-applicant No.2 informed the said incident to her father. Thereafter, her father paid the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as well as one gold necklace set. Again, in the year 2011, the applicants asked non-applicant No.2 to bring a ‘Fortuner’ car from her father. On this count also, the applicants abused and assaulted non-applicant No.2.
It is also alleged that applicant No.1 has extra marital relations with a girl. On this count, there was a quarrel between applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2. The mother-in-law also assaulted non-applicant No.2. Therefore, since the year 2019, non-applicant No.2 is residing with her parents at Nagpur. On the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against all the applicants.
The present application was initially opposed by non-applicant No.2. Now, the matter has been settled between the applicants and non-applicant No.2. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways and for that purpose, they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent at Patiala Court. The applicants as well as non-applicant No.2 have tendered their affidavits across the bar, which are taken on record and marked as ‘X1’ to ‘X4’ for identification respectively.
Non-applicant No.2 has appeared through video conferencing. She is duly identified by her counsel. Non-applicant No.2 in her affidavit has contended that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to get separated by filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the learned Family Court, Patiala. Non-applicant No.2 has further contended in her affidavit that no grievance survives against the applicants and she has no objection if the present FIR and consequent chargesheet are quashed.
Considering the fact that the dispute is arising out of a matrimonial discord and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute as well as the fact that applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 have decided to part ways to lead their future life peacefully, the pending proceedings may become a hindrance in their peaceful life.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, has held as under :
“10.[In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the “negative”. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”
In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
The Criminal Application is allowed.
FIR No.478/2025, dated 18.11.2025, registered with Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 85, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequent chargesheet No.04/2026, dated 12.01.2026, are hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants.
The applicants shall deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only) to be paid to Gondia Bar Association, District Gondia, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. The bank details of the Gondia Bar Association are as under :
Account Name : Bar Association Gondia
Account No. : 0182000100041568
IFSC No. : PUNB0018200
Bank name : Punjab National Bank branch Gondia
The criminal application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.