Bombay High Court
Kiran Namdev Desai And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 12 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:24759-DB
528APPLN2477-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2477 OF 2025
1. Kiran s/o Namdeo Desai
Age 49 years, Occu: Agri.
2. Burnakavau w/o Namdeo Desai
Age 73 years, Occu: Household
3. Manoj s/o Namdeo Desai
Age 45 years, Occu: Agri.
4. Shital w/o Manoj Desai
Age 38 years, Occu: Household
5. Pranav s/o Manoj Desai ... Applicants
Age: 22 years, Occu: Student (Orig. Accused)
All R/o R/o Narlibag, Soegaon
Tq. Soegaon Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Investigating Officer,
Phulambri Police Station,
District Chh. Sambhajinagar
2. Rupali Kiran Desai ... Respondents
Age 40 years, Occu: Household
R/o Pokhari
Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
Mr. Adil A. Shaikh h/for Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent-State
Mr. K. A. Pathade, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 12.09.2025
ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)
528APPLN2477-25
1. Present application has been filed under Section 582 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashment of First
Information Report vide Crime No.0260/2025 dated 20.05.2025 registered
with Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar, for the offence
punishable under Sections 85,115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of
Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Applicant No.1 is husband of Respondent No.2 Rupali- original
complainant/informant. Applicant No.2 is mother-in-law, Applicant No.3 is
brother-in-law, Applicant No.4 is sister-in-law and Applicant No.5 is
nephew of the informant.
3. Respondent No.2/informant lodged first information report
against the present applicants on 20.05.2025 alleging that she was married
to applicant No. 1 on 05.05.2007 and started living with her husband at
her matrimonial home. She was treated well by applicants initially for
some days. It is alleged that subsequently, the applicants started torturing
and ill-treating the complainant on trivial issues and also raised
suspicion on her character. They asked the complainant to bring Rs.
1,50,000/-, from her parents for business purpose and in pursuance to the
demand, the applicants started ill-treating the complainant. They used to
beat her and harass her physically and mentally. With these allegations,
528APPLN2477-25
she lodged complaint and the offence as referred above came to be
registered against the applicants.
4. Heard Mr. Adil. A. Shaikh learned counsel for the applicants, Mr
A. R. Kale, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr. K. A. Pathade,
learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the respective parties have stated that
during pendency of the application, the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and have arrived at a compromise through the process of
private negotiations. The compromise pursis containing the terms of
settlement, has been produced on record. Terms of compromise have been
got verified through Registrar (Judicial) and learned Registrar (Judicial)
has submitted his report dated 26.08.2025. Terms of compromise read as
thus:
"Above mentioned applicants and the respondent no 2/
Original complainant most respectfully submit as under:
1) That, the applicants had filed criminal application for
quashing of FIR bearing Crime no. Crime No. 0260/2025
dated 20.05.2025 registered in Phulambri Police Station, for
the offence punishable u/s. 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2),
351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2) That, the dispute between the parties has arisen out of
matrimonial dispute between applicant no. 1/ husband and
respondent no. 2/ wife. Now, they have settled the
misunderstanding between them and are living together in
the same house.
528APPLN2477-25
3) That, respondent no. 2/ wife have cohabited with the
applicant no. 1/ husband. Therefore, the applicants and
respondent no.2 don't want to prosecute the matter further.
4) That, respondent no. 2/wife has no objection to allow the
criminal application and quashed the FIR bearing Crime No.
0260/2025 dated 20.05.2025 registered in Phulambri Police
Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5) That the applicants and respondent no. 2 have entered
into the compromise out of their own will and desire and
the applicants and the respondent no. 2 have arrived at an
amicable settlement.
6) That the contents of this document are read over and
explained to applicants and respondent no. 2/original
complainant in vernacular language and the applicants and
respondent no. 2/original complainant understands the
contents of this document.
7) That in view of the compromise the criminal application
may kindly be disposed off by appropriate orders."
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.
2/informant has not disputed about the fact of settlement of matrimonial
dispute between the applicants/accused and Respondent No.2/informant.
In view of the compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the application be allowed. The counsel submits that compounding is
permissible in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Gian Singh V/s State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another V/s. The State of Madhya
Pradhesh and Another; (2021) 17 SCC 802.
528APPLN2477-25
7. In case of Suresh Nathmal Rathi & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., 1991 (2) Mh. L.J. 1106, the Single Bench of this Court held in
paras 21 as under:
"After giving conscious consideration to the case and also the
facts placed before me for seeking the permission and to
direct the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow the parties
to compound the offence, no doubt, such permission can be
granted only under the peculiar and social circumstances and
considering the facts and circumstances, it is a peculiar and
special case. As it is submitted in the applications Exhibits 34
and 35 filed before the J.M.F.C. Shegaon and statement made
by Shri Bhattad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is
crystal clear that now there is no dispute between the parties
and the complainant Smt. Shobha is leading happy married
life. If the permission sought for to compound the offence
punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, is not
considered, there would be a destruction of the married life
and they would not prolong well in the eyes of the society. If
the hanging sword is over the neck of the husband as well as
the old mother and the brothers, the relations may again
become strained and there would be a destruction of the
happy life of Smt. Shobha and her husband. It may be that at
one point of time, the husband and the relations had
committed some undescribed Act, but subsequently, the facts
reveal that they repent and ultimately, all are happy. Under
these circumstances, it would not be desirable to reject the
prayer made by the petitioners and to disturb their happy life.
On the contrary, the husband and wife are enjoying the
peaceful life. Under the circumstances and in the interest of
the maintenance of the coordinative relationship between
husband and wife as well as other members of the family, the
petitioners be allowed to compound the offence under
section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."
528APPLN2477-25
8. In case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of this Court
to the effect that offences involved in that case were not offences
against the society. It included charge under Section 307 Indian Penal
Code as well. However, apart from stating so, there is no detained
discussion on this aspect. Moreover, it is the other factors which
prevailed with the Court to accept the settlement and compound he
offence, as noted above while discussing this case. On the other hand,
in Shambhu Kewat (supra), after referring to some other earlier
judgments, this Court opined that commission of offence under
Section 307 Indian Penal Code would be crime against the society at
large, and not a crime against an individual only. We find that in most
of the cases, this view is taken. Even on first principle, we find that an
attempt to take the life of another person has to be treated as a
heinous crime and against the society.
28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious
offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard
realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the
parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by
either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an
offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as well.
Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the
provision of Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not, by itself, be a
ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse
to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such
cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the
nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries
were inflicted (namely whether injuries are caused at the
vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used etc.
On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving
the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, once the evidence to
that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept
settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of
prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High
528APPLN2477-25
Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 Indian Penal
Code were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can
accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement
between the parties.
29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of
settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter
is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation.
of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances
as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted
but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above,
since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Code of Criminal
Procedure is also placed before the Court it would become the
bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence
collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc.
sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined
along with another important consideration, namely, in view of
settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary
to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and
whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court
finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case
would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to
the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such
cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal
proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any
case."
9. In case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of
the case in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and
observed in para 6 as follows:-
6. In Nikhil Merchant AIR 2009 SC 428, a company, M/s.
Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai was granted financial
528APPLN2477-25
assistance by Andhra Bank under various facilities. On account of
default in repayment of loans, the bank filed a suit for recovery of
the amount payable by the borrower company. The bank also filed
a complaint against the company, its Managing Director and the
officials of Andhra Bank for diverse offences, namely, Section 120-
B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The suit for
recovery filed by the bank against the company and the Managing
Director of the Company was compromised. The suit was
compromised upon the Defendants agreeing to pay the amounts
due as per the schedule mentioned in the consent terms. Clause
11 of the consent terms read, "agreed that save as aforesaid
neither party has any claim against the other and parties do
hereby withdraw all the allegations and counter-allegations made
against each other". Based on Clause 11 of the consent terms, the
Managing Director of the Company, the Appellant who was
accused No. 3 in charge sheet filed by CBI, made application for
discharge from the criminal complaint. The said application was
rejected by the Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, which came
to be challenged before the Bombay High Court. The contention
before the High Court was that since the subject matter of the
dispute had been settled between the Appellant and the bank, it
would be unreasonable to continue with the criminal proceedings.
The High Court rejected the application for discharge from the
criminal cases. It is from this order that the matter reached this
Court by way of special leave. The Court having regard to the
facts of the case and the earlier decision of this Court in B.S.
Joshi, AIR 2003 SC 1386: (2003) 4 SCC 675, set aside the order
of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings by
consideration of the matter thus:
28. The basic intention of the accused in this case appears
to have been to misrepresent the financial status of the
Company, M/s Neemuch Emballage Ltd., Mumbai, in order
to avail of the credit facilities to an extent to which the
Company was not entitled. In other words, the main
intention of the Company and its officers was to cheat the
528APPLN2477-25
Bank and induce it to part with additional amounts of credit
to which the Company was not otherwise entitled.
29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an
offence of cheating punishable Under Section 420 Indian
Penal Code, the same has been made compoundable under
Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure
with the leave of the court. of course, forgery has not been
included as one of the compoundable offences, but it is in
such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi case
becomes relevant.
30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company
and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the
compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the
Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to
have any further claim against the Company. What, however,
remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to
have been created by the Appellant herein in order to avail
of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company
was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a
civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which
is required to be answered in this case is whether the power
which independently lies with this Court to quash the
criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at,
should at all be exercised?
31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated
hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court
in B.S. Joshi case and the compromise arrived at between
the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent
terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that
this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to
stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal
proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same
after the compromise arrived at between the parties would
be a futile exercise."
528APPLN2477-25
10. From the terms of compromise, it appears that the parties have
settled the dispute amicably and have decided to set at rest the present
criminal proceeding. Therefore, considering the law laid down in the cases
cited supra as well societal interest between the parties, in order to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of process of law, it will be just
and proper to quash and set aside the F.I.R. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) Criminal Application stands allowed.
ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0260/2025, dated
20.05.2025, registered with Phulambri Police Station, Dist. Chh.
Sambhajinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023
is hereby quashed and set aside as against all the applicants.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )
JPChavan
