Bombay High Court
Nasima Shaikh And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 November, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AS:48165-DB
bipin prithiani
1
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4610 OF 2022
Mohammed Sohail Shaikh ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 172 OF 2023
Nasima Shaikh & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
******
Ms. Neha Balani a/w Mr. Harsh Shah i/by Sana Raees Khan for the
Petitioners in both Petitions.
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Irfan A. A. Ansari i/by Vaibhav R. Shah for Respondent No.2.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER 2025
P.C. :
. These two petitions were circulated today in the
supplementary list upon being mentioned on behalf of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these
petitions and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (original
informant) submit that the parties have now amicably settled their
disputes and that the respondent No.2 has given consent for
allowing the petitions, which seek quashing of FIR No. 1152 of
2022 dated 30th September 2022 registered at Deonar Police
Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 377, 342, 498-A,
406, 326, 504, 506 and 507 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC).
bipin prithiani
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
3. The learned counsel have tendered two sets of consent terms
in these two writ petitions. It is to be noted that Criminal Writ
Petition No. 4610 of 2022 is filed by the husband of the
respondent No.2 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 172 of 2023 is
filed by the relatives of the husband of respondent No.2, all of
whom have been named as accused in the subject FIR. The
consent terms are signed by all the petitioners as well as
respondent No.2. We have perused the contents of the consent
terms and we find that the petitioner (husband) and respondent
No.2 have agreed to go through their own ways and that a
Khulanama dated 6th November 2025 is executed, in the context
of which specific amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid as goodwill
gesture and Rs.51,000/- is paid as mehar amount to respondent
No.2.
4. Respondent No.2 is present in-person in Court and she
confirms the fact that she has signed the consent terms voluntarily,
without any coercion and that she fully understands the
consequences of the consent terms.
5. During the course of hearing, we put a specific query to the
learned counsel for the petitioners that since offence under Section
377 of the IPC is also involved in the present case, would it be
appropriate to allow these petitions on the basis of settlement
between the parties and with the consent of respondent No.2. In
that light, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v/s. State of
bipin prithiani
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and order dated 8th July 2025
passed by this Court in the case of Akshay s/o Rammilan Pal v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr., along with connected
applications bearing Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 900, 290 &
441 of 2025. It is emphasized that in the said order dated 8 th July
2025, the fact that the said case also involved an offence under
Section 377 of the IPC was noted and thereupon, reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), as also judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of
Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. v/s. State of Gujarat & Anr, (2017)
9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v/s. Laxmi Narayan &
Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, to hold that the applications for quashing
of FIR, including offence under Section 377 of the IPC could be
allowed, to meet the ends of justice.
6. We have perused the aforesaid judgments. We find that
paragraph No.61 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the
following position of law was laid down :
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
bipin prithiani
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard
to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
bipin prithiani
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
7. In the aforesaid order of this Court in the case of Akshay s/o
Rammilan Pal v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (supra), the
following observations were made :
"18. We are experiencing that, Legislation intended to
improve marital relationships, such as the Domestic Violence
Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act
etc., are frequently misused by parties, resulting in multiplicity
of litigation, that not only burdens the Court, but, also cause
mental as well as physical harassment, endless conflict,
financial loss and irreversible harm to children and other
family members. In such cases, the Court should support a
respectful settlement to terminate all litigation between the
parties while protecting their life and liberty, which is a
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
As observed in the case of State of Maharashtra .vrs.
Chandrabhan (AIR 1983 SC 803), that right to life enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution means something more
than survival or animal existence, and therefore, we are of the
opinion that matrimonial disputes, if re-union is not possible,
shall be put to an end as early as possible otherwise the life of
persons will be ruined, if it is permitted to go on and would
be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure can be exercised to do complete justice
which would save the future life of husband and wife and they
would be free to lead their respective life happily and with
dignity, which is another facet of Article 21."
8. We are also of the opinion that in appropriate cases, this
Court can exercise power to allow such petitions in the light of
amicable settlement of disputes, particularly when such disputes
emanate from matrimonial discord between married couples. The
parties having arrived at an amicable settlement would require this
bipin prithiani
902-wp-4610.22 & anr.doc
Court to exercise jurisdiction in the interest of justice and also to
meet the ends of justice, so that the parties are no longer subjected
to continued harassment and their dignity is restored.
9. In the facts of the present case, we are inclined to exercise
such powers to allow the petitions in terms of the prayers made
therein.
10. Accordingly, the criminal writ petitions are allowed in terms
of prayer clause (a) in both the petitions.
11. Consequently, subject FIR bearing No. 1152 of 2022 dated
30th September 2022 is quashed.
12. The petitions stand allowed in the above terms.
13. The consent terms tendered on behalf of the parties are
taken on record and marked 'X' for identification, in each of the
petitions.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
