Bombay High Court
Sheikh Altamash S/O Sheikh Abdul Mazhar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Pusad ... on 24 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9756-DB
946 J-APL 1267-2025.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1267/2025
1. Sheikh Altamash S/o Sheikh Abdul Mazhar,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation: Vendor.
2. Sheikh Abdul Mazhar Seikh Abdul Kadar,
Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Vendor.
3. Tahamina Begam Sheikh,
Aged about 55 years, Occupation: Household,
Applicants no. 1 to 3 are R/o. Plot No.64,
Shri Krisna Nagar, Nagpur, District: Nagpur
4. Ikaramurrahim Haji Abdul Rahim Sheikh
Aged about 86 years, Occupation: Rest
5. Anwari Begam Ikaramurrahim Sheikh
Aged about 76 years, Occupation: Household,
6. Mohd. Sajid Ikramur Rahim Sheikh
Aged about 54 years, Occupation: Service,
7. Noorunnisa Md. Sajid Sheikh,
Aged about 48 years, Occupation: Household,
8. Alvina Tazin Sajid Sheikh, Aged about 23
years, Occupation: Education, Applicants no. 4
to 8 are R/o Jawahar Ward, Desaiganj (Wadsa),
Tehsil: Desaiganj (Wasda), District: Gadchiroli,
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
946 J-APL 1267-2025.odt 2/5
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer, Police Station
Pusad (City), Tehsil: Pusad, District: Yavatmal
2. Samreen Parveen Sheikh Altamash
Aged about 30 years, Occupation:
Ladies Tailor R/o. C/o. Aziz Khan Haji
Gafar, Near Madina Masjid, Masjid
Ward Pusad, Tehsil - Pusad, District:
Yavatmal.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.B. Gawali Advocate for applicants
Ms S.Z. Haidar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
Non-applicant No.2 present in person
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 24.09.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant/State and
non-applicant No.2 in person.
2. The present application is preferred by the applicants
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
Crime No. 0307/2024, registered with Police Station Pusad (City),
Tehsil Pusad, District Yavatmal, under Section 498-A, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant No.1 is the husband and the other applicants
are his relatives. The crime is registered against them on the basis
of a report lodged by the non-applicant No.2, on an allegation that
her marriage with applicant No.1 was performed, and after
marriage, she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the
applicant No.1. But she was not treated well. She was ill treated
and constrained to leave the matrimonial house. On the basis of the
said report police have registered the crime against the present
applicants.
4. During the pendency of the application, both parties have
arrived at a settlement before the Family Court. The settlement
terms are placed before the Court. After the settlement, the
application was filed. The settlement terms are before the Court. As
per the settlement they have decided to obtain a decree of
dissolution of marriage. The parties are present, especially the non-
applicant No.2 is present along with her father. She agreed and
accepted the terms of the settlement. The applicants are also
present, they are also verified by their respective Counsel and they
have also accepted the terms and contents of the settlement. In
view of the settlement, the application deserves to be allowed. At
the same time, it is to be noted that the applicants, as well as the
non-applicant No.2, have used the valuable time of the police
machinery to investigate the matter, and in view of that, the
application deserves to be allowed, subject to the costs.
5. In the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303,
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "where the
High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact
that 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."
6. The similar observation is made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of UP, (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein,
it is observed that when the parties have amicably resolved the
dispute, continuation of proceeding would be futile and the ends of
justice require that the settlement be given effect by quashing the
proceedings. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1) Criminal application is allowed.
2) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.
0307/2024, registered with Police Station Pusad (City), Tehsil
Pusad, District Yavatmal, under Section 498-A, read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed, subject to costs of
Rs.20,000/- by the applicant and Rs.20,000/- by non-applicant
No.2.
3) The costs be paid to the Vidarbha Lady Law Association,
Nagpur.
7. The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
