AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
Both the applications have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarki Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). In APL No.1465/2025, the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 751/2025 registered with Police Station, Saoner for the offences punishable under Sections 85 (old Section 498A of the IPC) r/w. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) , consequent charge-sheet No. 228/2025 and RCC No.460/2025 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Saoner. Whereas, in APL No. 1763/2025 the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR No.144/2025 registered with Police Station, Kamptee for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 296 and 352 of the BNS, charge-sheet no.16/2026 and RCC No.23/2026 pending on the file of the learned JMFC, Kamptee.
For adjudicating the matter the brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as follows:-
In APL No.1465/2025, applicant no.1- Rajan is the husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2- Ritika whereas, applicant no.2- Kamlabai is the mother-in-law, applicant nos.3- Satish and applicant no.5- Sachin are the brothers-in-law and applicant nos. 4- Sneha and applicant no.6- Kiran are the sisters-in-law of the complainant.
ii) In APL No. 1763/2025, applicant- Rajendra is father of Ritika, the complainant in APL No. 1465/2025 and the complainant/non-applicant no.2- Sunita is the mother of applicant no.4- Sneha in APL No.1465/2025.
iii) As per APL No. 1465/2025, the marriage of complainant-Ritika and applicant no.1- Rajan was solemnized on 04.12.2024. On 28.08.2025, complainant- Ritika lodged complaint with the Police Station alleging that after her marriage when she went to her matrimonial house, all the applicants started harassing her. On account of the persisting dispute, on 21.03.2025, a meeting was held with complainant- Ritika’s and applicant no.1- Rajan’s parents and relatives to resolve the issue but, in the said meeting quarrel ensued between them. Therefore, on the allegations of harassment at the hands of the applicants to complainant- Ritika, she lodged the compliant with the Police and the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the applicants.
iv) Whereas, as per APL No. 1763/2025, the FIR was lodged by complainant- Sunita, who is the mother of applicant no.4- Sneha in APL No.1465/2025, alleging that on 21.03.2025 when she visited the house of the applicants in APL No.1465/2025 for attending a meeting in connection of their family dispute, applicant- Rajendra, the father of Ritika started abusing Kamlabai. When, applicant- Rajendra tried to assault Kamlabai by means of a steel chair, complainant- Sunita came in between them and as a result of that she sustained injury/fracture on her right hand. Therefore, on her complaint the aforesaid offences came to be registered against applicant- Rajendra.
In APL No. 1465/2025, initially the application was objected by complainant -Ritika in APL No.1465/2025. It is now contended that the matter has been settled between the parties. Complainant- Ritika has tendered an affidavit dated 29.08.2026 across the bar through her counsel wherein she has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Complainant- Ritika and applicant no.1- Rajan have decided to part their ways. A petition for their mutual divorce is also pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division (CJSD), Nagpur. Therefore, complainant- Ritika does not want to proceed with prosecution against the applicants in APL No.1465/2025 and she has no objection if the FIR, charge-sheet and consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside. Complainant-Ritika is personally present in the Court and she is duly identified by her counsel. On enquiry, she reiterated the contents of the affidavit and submits that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside.
Likewise, in APL No.1763/2025 complainant- Sunita is also personally present in the Court and she is duly identified by her counsel. She also tendered an affidavit dated 29.08.2026 across the bar and contended that the matter has been settled between them and she does not wants to prosecute applicant- Rajendra and has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside against applicant- Rajendra. On enquiry, she reiterated the contents of the affidavit and submits that she has no objections if the FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed against the applicant.
In relation to the settlement of dispute, reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, [(2014) 6 SCC 466], wherein the Supreme Court has in para 29 has observed as under:-
“29.1.Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i)ends of justice, or
(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3.Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4.On the other, 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.
29.5.While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
Sofaras, the settlement in matter pertaining to Section 498A of the IPC/ Section 85 of the BNS is concerned, reliance can also be placed on the decision in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675], wherein the Supreme Court in para no. 14 has held as under:-
“14.There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.”
So also, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], 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 dispute has arose out of a matrimonial discord. Now, applicant no.1- Rajan and complainant- Ritika in APL No.1465/2025 have decided to part their ways and also filed a mutual divorce petition which is pending before the learned CJSD, Nagpur now both of them want to move ahead in their life hence, continuance of proceeding will be a hindrance in their future life. Therefore, a case is made out for quashing both the FIRs and consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIRs by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
Both the applications are allowed.
ii) In APL No. 1465/2025, FIR No. 751/2025 registered with Police Station Sanoer for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5) and 85 of the BNS, consequent charge-sheet No. 228/2025 and RCC No.460/2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Saoner are hereby quashed and set aside against the applicants subject to deposit of total costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) in the account of “Public Welfare Fund” with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account no. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 by the applicants.
iii) In APL No. 1763/2025, FIR No.144/2025 registered with Police Station, Kamptee for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 296 and 352 of the BNS, charge-sheet no.16/2026 and RCC No.23/2026 pending on the file of the learned JMFC, Kamptee are hereby quashed and set aside against the applicant.