AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
The present joint petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Petitioner no.2 seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 261/2026 registered with Police Station Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act of 1989”) wherein petitioner no.1- Prakash Tayde is the complainant and petitioner no.2 is the accused. Further, petitioner nos.1, 4 and 5 seek quashing of FIR No. 265/2026 registered with Police Station, Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 308(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS wherein petitioner no.3 is the complainant. It appears that both the FIRs are arising out of one and the same incident.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIRs, are as under:-
As per FIR No.261/2026, petitioner no. 1 is a retired State Transport mechanic, who belongs to Chambhar community recognized as Scheduled Caste. It is alleged by him that on 15.04.2026, his friend petitioner no.4- Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Iman called him at a furniture shop situated at Vatika Chowk to help him to convince petitioner no.2-Sohail Ali Aijaz Ali, the son-in-law of petitioner no.4, so as to not misbehave with his wife i.e. daughter of petitioner no.4. At that time, petitioner no.2 abused him using derogatory caste aspersions and also in filthy language. Therefore, on his complaint, FIR No. 261/2026 came to be registered against petitioner no.2.
ii) As per FIR No.265/2026, petitioner no.3- Fatemabi Aijaz Ali, the mother of petitioner no.2, lodged complaint alleging that on 15.04.2026, when she along with her husband- Aijaz Ali, two sons-Sohail Ali i.e. petitioner no.2 and Rakib Ali attended a meeting which was arranged at a shop situated at Vatika Chowk, an altercation took place amongst the petitioners on account of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no.2 and his wife, the daughter of petitioner no.4. It is alleged in the FIR lodged by petitioner no.3 that, petitioner no.1 demanded money to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs from petitioner no.2. When petitioner no.2 refused to pay any such amount, petitioner no.1 threaten them to implicate petitioner no.2 in a false Atrocities case and also abused them. Hence, on the complaint of petitioner no.3 the aforesaid offences came to be registered against petitioner nos.1, 4 and 5.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and do not want to continue with the prosecution hence, prayed for quashing of both the FIRs.
On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State submits that the offence alleged are serious in nature and insisted that the petitioners be required to face trial. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
By this joint petition, all the petitioners prayed for quashing both the FIRs on account of settlement arrived amongst themselves. Each of the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein it is contended that they have settled their dispute out of the Court and they do not want to continue with the prosecution and have no objection if the FIRs are quashed.
All the petitioners are personally present in the Court and duly identified by their counsel. Each petitioner admits the contents of his/her affidavit, more particularly petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have reiterated that they do not want to prosecute the other petitioners and have no objection if both the FIRs are quashed.
The dispute arose due to a matrimonial discord between petitioner no.2 and his wife, the daughter of petitioner no.4 and the dispute appears to be private in nature. Moreover, the genesis of the said dispute is the differences between petitioner no.2 and his wife, the daughter of petitioner no.4 and a meeting was called to settle the matrimonial discord wherein altercations took place. It is not the case that petitioner no.2 intentionally humiliated petitioner no.1 in the name of his caste. Since, the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court and the matrimonial dispute has been sorted out therefore, continuation of the present prosecution may be a hindrance in leading peaceful future life by the petitioners.
It is a settled position of law that generally the grave and heinous crime which are against the society cannot be quashed while exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. However, in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another1, it has been observed in para no. 29.4 as under:-
“29.4On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”
So also, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others2, it has been observed in para no. 15.5 as under:-
“15.5While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.”
The petitioner no.2 in the present case is also charged for contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1989. In this context, the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3, in para no. 17 has held as under:-
“17.On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
In the present case, the dispute is of a private nature and not a heinous one. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. In view of the fact that the dispute arose from a matrimonial discord and the parties have amicably resolved it, the possibility of the prosecution culminating into conviction appears to be remote. The continuation of prosecution will be a hindrance for the petitioners in leading a peaceful life. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose.
Therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order :-
The petition is allowed.
ii) FIR No. 261/2026 registered with Police Station Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) FIR No. 265/2026 registered with Police Station, Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 308(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS is also quashed and set aside.
iv) The petitioners to deposit total costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) in “Public Welfare Fund” with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account no. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 within two weeks from today.
Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.