Sachin Deepak Giripunje & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

This application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 606/2024 dated 22.10.2024 registered with Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati City, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), consequent charge-sheet No. 728/2025 dated 18.10.2025 and Regular Criminal Case No. 2075/2025 pending on the file of learned 8^th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

i] Applicant no.1 is the husband of non-applicant no.2/ complainant, whereas applicant nos. 2 to 5 are the relatives of applicant no.1. The marriage of the complainant with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 15.04.2023. After marriage, the complainant started cohabiting with applicant no.1 at the matrimonial house, where the other applicants were also residing.

ii] On 22.10.2024, the complainant lodged a report against the applicants alleging physical and mental harassment at the hands of the applicants on account of inadequate dowry. All the applicants asked the complainant to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her parental house and used to taunt her on that count. The complainant also levelled the allegation of threat and criminal intimidation against the applicants. Therefore, on the basis of the said report, the FIR came to be registered against the applicants for the aforesaid offences. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Nagpure, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. Nikhil H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. Rahil Mirza, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2.

Applicant no.1 and the complainant have appeared through their respective counsel and filed a joint affidavit dated 02.11.2026 across the bar along with a copy of Settlement Agreement dated 12.10.2026. The affidavit and the Settlement Agreement are taken on record and collectively marked as “Exh.-X” for identification. It is stated in the joint affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicants and the complainant on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the Settlement Agreement before the Marriage Counsellor, Family Court, Yavatmal. It is stated that both the parties have decided to part their ways and the proceedings for divorce by mutual consent have been filed. It is stated by the complainant that she does not want to prosecute the applicants and she has no objection if the FIR in question and the consequent criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside. It is also stated that the parties have arrived at the settlement voluntarily, without force, threat, coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.

Applicant no.1 and the complainant are personally present before the Court today. They are duly identified by their respective counsel. They admitted the contents of the Joint Affidavit and reiterated the facts stated therein. The complainant states that she does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and has no objection if the FIR in question and the consequent criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside.

The offence alleged against the applicants are non-compoundable in nature. With regard to compoundability of the offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed in para 29.4 as under :

A useful reference can also be made to the decision in the case of Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported at (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein at paragraph 32, the Supreme Court has observed that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile. To secure the ends of justice, the settlement must be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. Continuation of the proceedings would be a grave abuse of the process of Court, particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved.

In the present case, the dispute is private in nature arising out of matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and the complainant. The other applicants are the relatives of applicant no.1 and therefore, they are being prosecuted by the complainant. Now, applicant no.1 and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute. They have decided to move ahead in their life. They are intending to part their ways. They have already filed the proceedings for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court, Yavatmal. As applicant no.1 and the complainant are below 30 years, they have their bright future ahead and fair chances to settle further in their life. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal prosecution would be a hindrance in leading their life peacefully. 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 :