Bombay High Court
Shubham Shamnarayan Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 10 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8931-DB
J-apl1065.24.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1065 OF 2024
Shubham Shyamnarayan Thakur,
Aged about 25,
Occupation : Private,
R/o.Plot No.26, Ganpati Nagar,
Godhani, Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Police Station Sadar,
District Nagpur.
2. Ankit Anand Jaiswal,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation : Private,
R/o.Plot No.203, Naer Hanuman Mandir,
Friends Colony, Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. N.H.Joshi, Advocate for Non-applicant No.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Nandesh S. Deshpande)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. This is an application seeking to quash the First
Information Report, in Crime No.232/2015, registered by
non-applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 364,
326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act and subsequent charge-sheet registered as
R.C.C. No.365/2016 on the file of 19 th Civil Judge, Junior Division and
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.
3. As per the F.I.R. which is registered on 22.07.2015 one
Ankit Anand Jaiswal lodged a report that on 21.07.2015 at about
10.30 p.m. he accompanied by his friends Kamalnayan Suresh Mishra,
Harshal Kiran Mehta and Yamey Mehta came near hotel Heritage at a
Pan Kiosk. While he was talking on his mobile persons, namely, Ravi
Rathod, Hariom Zamlani, Banshi Chaudhari and Shubham Thakur
came in a four wheeler POLO white colour vehicle and called him.
While he came near them they pushed him in the said car and Ravi
Rathod said that I have not returned Rs.20,000/- to him. Said Ravi
Rathod then started physically abusing me while Hariom Zamlani
started the vehicle and took me near Aakashwani Square. All of them
beat him with fists and blows. Hariom took out a knife and tried to
inflict injury with the said knife. During the scuffle which ensued
between us, he suffered an injury on hand and head. He somehow
succeeded in opening the door of the vehicle and started running on
the road while shouting. Hariom and his accompanying persons then
fleed from the spot. In an injured state he called his friends on mobile
and lodged a report with the Police Station Sadar, Nagpur. An F.I.R.
came to be registered vide Crime No.232/2015, for the offence
punishable under Sections 364, 326 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 235 of the Bombay Police Act. The
present application is filed under Section 482 for quashing the said
F.I.R.
4. We have heard Mr. M.N. Ali, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the non-applicant No.1. It is stated by learned counsel Mr. M.N. Ali
that a compromise had arrived at between the applicant and the first
informant i.e. non-applicant No.2 and on this ground alone he prays
for quashing of the F.I.R. against the present applicant. Additional
Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.
5. In the backdrop of these facts we have perused the
material on record. Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code speaks
about kidnapping or abducting in order to murder and states that
whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may
be murdered shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and
shall also be liable to fine. Section 326 speaks about voluntarily
causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means and provides
punishment for life or for with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Admittedly, both the offences are serious in nature. The only ground
seeking quashing of F.I.R. in question is regarding the alleged
amicable settlement between the parties.
6. Mr. M.N.Ali, learned counsel for the applicant in support
of his case has placed reliance on Judgment of Naushey Ali and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190 in
which the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that mere inclusion of
Section 307 of the I.P.C. in the F.I.R. or charge-sheet does not bar the
High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement
between the parties, provided the allegations do not substantiate the
offence. He has also placed reliance in an unreported judgment of
H.N. Pandakumar Vs. The State of Karnataka, delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.2667/2024 in SLP
(Cri.) No.895/2024. We have perused these judgments. The case of
Naushey Ali and others (supra) was a case where the High Court
refused to compound an offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code which was challenged before the Apex Court. In
para 6 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the
difference between compounding of offence and quashment of
proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 has held as under :
"6. At the outset, we want to set right the error
that occurs in the short order of the High Court.
The High Court has not appreciated the difference
between compounding of an offence and
quashment of proceedings. As explained in Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012)
10 SCC 303, quashing of offence or criminal
proceedings on the ground of settlement
between an offender and victim is not the same
thing as compounding of offence. This Court
highlighting the difference, had the following to
say :-
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal
proceedings on the ground of settlement
between an offender and victim is not the same
thing as compounding of offence. They are
different and not interchangeable. Strictly
speaking, the power of compounding
of offences given to a court under Section 320
is materially different from the quashing of
criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a criminal
court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the
High Court for quashing a criminal offence or
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is
guided by the material on record as to whether
the ends of justice would justify such exercise of
power although the ultimate consequence may
be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the
dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is
put to an end and peace is restored; securing
the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the society and it is
not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably
or that the victim has been paid compensation,
yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the
permission of the court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, the settlement
between the offender and the victim can have
no legal sanction at all. However, certain
offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,
where the wrong is basically to the victim and
the offender and the victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of
the fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing
the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Each case will depend on its own facts and no
hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."
(Emphasis supplied)"
7. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that quashing of
offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between
the offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. Only because there is a settlement for certain categories of
offences, proceedings will not be quashed. This is on the premise that
crimes that are harmful and effects the public at large and consists of
wrong doing that seriously endangers or threatens the fabric of the
society cannot be quashed only because the accused and the victim
have amicably settled the matter.
8. We are also supported by the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Dr. Sangeet Daf and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 265, in which para 18
thereof. This Court reproduced para 18 as under :
"18. This Court is a custodian of law. Rather it is
the duty of each and every Court to minutely
scrutinize the material brought before it and to
give the verdict in accordance with law. Merely
because the parties are coming before the Court
and making the joint request that the chargesheet
should be quashed, that alone cannot be the
criteria for quashing the chargesheet. In this case,
we will not allow ourselves to accede to the prayer
made, especially when there is a report by three
expert doctors who unequivocally recorded finding
that there was no reasonable care and monitoring
at the hands of the applicant No.1 and she was
negligent."
9. In the backdrop of this dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
facts stated (supra) resulting in lodging of F.I.R. need to be
appreciated. There is nothing on record to show, except for bare
averments in the application that the applicant and non-applicant
No.2 have amicably settled the matter. Except for the statement of
the applicant in the application that it was a petty loan dispute no
material has been placed on record to substantiate the averments that
the matter has been settled. As stated by us in the preceding para the
offences alleged are of serious nature and cannot be said to be a petty
loan dispute. Furthermore specific role is attributed to applicant.
10. It is very easy to say so by the applicant, but while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code we are aware of the parameters as also the limitations defined
by this Court as also the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time.
Quashing proceedings of such a nature would send bad signal to the
society and would not be in the interest of public. The judgments
cited by the applicant are not applicable to the present case inasmuch
as the judgment of Naushey Ali and others (supra) purely speaks
about Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is in fact a precedent
for differentiating between the compounding of offence of quashment
of proceedings. The facts in the judgment of H.N. Pandakumar
(supra) are also different. Thus, the said judgments are not applicable
to the present matter. We, therefore, refuse to exercise inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and
reject the application filed by the applicant. Hence, I pass following
order :
ORDER
(i) The application is rejected.
(ii) Order accordingly.
(Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2025 10:51:27
