[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Romaan Hussain Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17903-DB
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
CHANDAN
GOPAL Date:
CHANDAN 2026.04.16
20:32:59
+0530 lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1536 OF 2025
Romaan Hussain Pathan : Applicant.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.
-----
Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate a/w Ms. Shraddha Vavhal for the
Applicant.
Mrs. Anuja Gotad, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Archit Jayakar a/w Ms. Pooja Yadav for the Respondent
No.2.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 16 APRIL 2026
PC:-
1. This Application is listed on today's board at Sr. No. 75.
At the request of Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate for
the Applicant and Mr. Archit Jayakar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2, this Application is taken up out of turn.
2. At the outset, Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate
for the Applicant, seeks leave to amend prayer clause (c) to
incorporate the FIR number. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP
for the Respondent-State, and Mr. Archit Jayakar, learned
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
Advocate for Respondent No. 2, do not object to the request
made by Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate for the
Applicant. In view of no objection, leave is granted to amend
the prayer clause (c). Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate states that the
amendment will be carried out forthwith. Permission granted.
3. Heard, Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate for the
Applicant Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent-
State and Mr. Archit Jayakar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
4. This Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the Applicant
for quashing the FIR bearing No. 600/2015 (hereafter
"impugned FIR") dated 24th September 2015, registered with
the Bandra Police Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 452, 354, 509, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and the Charge-sheet arising out of the impugned FIR.
5. Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Mr. Archit Jayakar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2, submit that the subject matter of the
impugned FIR is a personal dispute between two friends i.e.
the Applicant and Respondent No.2. They submit that due to a
misunderstanding between the Applicant and Respondent
No.2, disputes arose, leading to altercation and verbal abuses.
They submit that the incident referred to in the impugned FIR
is almost 10 years old. They submit that both the Applicant
and Respondent No. 2 have now settled in life, reconciled and
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
agreed to put an end to the said dispute. They further submit
that Respondent No.2 has affirmed an Affidavit dated 27 th
March 2026, stating her no objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising out of the
impugned FIR. They therefore request the quashing of the
impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising out of the
impugned FIR.
6. Applicant appears through V.C. and is identified by his
Advocate Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate. He tenders the Photostat
copy of the Applicant's Identity Card, which is taken on record
and marked with "X" for identification.
7. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is
identified by her Advocate Mr. Archit Jayakar. He tenders the
Photostat copy of Respondent No.2's Identity Card, which is
taken on record and marked with "X-1" for identification.
8. Mr. Archit Jayakar, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 27th March 2026, affirmed
by Respondent No.2 before the Notary Ms. Uma Vyavaharkar,
Mumbai, is placed on record and the same is marked as "X-2"
for identification.
9. Respondent No. 2, who is present in court, states that
the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed of her own free will and
without any pressure or coercion from any person. She states
that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are true and as per her
say. She states that she and the Applicant have amicably
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
resolved the matter. She states that the Applicant has given
her a written apology, expressing regret for his action. She
submits that as the incident is almost 10 years old and
considering the regret expressed by the Applicant, she has no
objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. She
states that she has shifted to the United Arab Emirates and
wants to live peacefully. She states that she does not intend to
continue the criminal proceedings and wants to bring them to
an end. She states that she will not support the prosecution's
case. She reiterates her no objection to the quashing of the
criminal proceedings.
10. Mrs Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent-State,
submits that the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 having
amicably resolved their private dispute and considering the
statements made by the Respondent No.2 today before this
Court and also in her Affidavit (X-2), she does not object to
the quashing of the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet
arising out of the impugned FIR. She, however, submits that
the parties have unnecessarily involved the police machinery
in a private dispute and as such she insists on imposing costs
on the Applicant.
11. Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, on instructions, states that appropriate costs would
be paid by the Applicant.
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab1 in paragraph no. 61 has held as under:-
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 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
2012 10 SCC 303
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
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 High Court shall
be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.
13. In the case of Narinder Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab
and Anr2 in paragraph no. 29 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay
down the following principles by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties and exercising its power
under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to
be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties
have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
2014 6 SCC 466
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to
have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are
to be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section
307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as
to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former
case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived
at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and
the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may
be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that
at this stage the investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start
or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but
after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in
such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide
the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or
not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the
same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already
been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved
under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded
of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of
sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
14. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The
State of Gujarat3, in paragraph no. 16, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
16. The broad principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court
or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not
confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding
2017 9 SCC 641
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision
to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons
for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between
the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender
is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance.
15. Considering the facts in the case at hand as mentioned
above, the submissions of the learned Advocates for the
parties, the nature of the dispute arising out of
misunderstanding amongst friends, the statements made by
the Respondent No.2 before this Court as well as in her
Affidavit (X-2) and her having now settled in the United Arab
Emirates and expressed her intention not to continue with the
criminal proceedings, no useful purpose will be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. Having regard
to the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is
no impediment in allowing this Application.
16. In view of the above, Criminal Application No. 1536 of
2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c), subject to the
Applicant paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Payment of costs is a
condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the
Chargesheet arising therefrom are quashed.
(75) APL-1536.25.DOCX
17. The Applicant shall deposit the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in
the Account mentioned below within two weeks from today
and file with the Registry of this Court the compliance
affidavit, along with proof of deposit, on or before 4th May
2026.
Central Police Welfare Fund
Director General MS Mumbai
Account No: 914010029005759
Bank : Axis Bank Limited
Branch : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai - 400 025
IFSC Code: UTIB0000060
18. The Criminal Application No.1536 of 2025 is disposed
of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
