[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pandurang Maruti Shelke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 21 January, 2026
-1-
criappln58.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
976 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2026
Pandurang Maruti Shelke & others ....Applicants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents
Mr. K. K. Katariya, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the State.
Mr. N. B. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 21st JANUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable forthwith. Learned
APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel
Mr. Narwade waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
2. This application is filed invoking inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing
the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 0769/2025 registered
with Shevgaon Police Station, District Ahiyanagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 324(4), 189(2), 333,
190, 191(2), 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-2-
criappln58.26.odt
3. The brief facts of the case can be narrated as under :-
On 26.08.2025, Applicant Pandurang came to the house of the
complainant and assaulted her with the help of an iron rod. It is
further alleged that Applicant Jayashri abused the complainant and
assualted her with a sickle. Father of the complainanat intervened
them and admitted her to Rural Hospital, Shevgaon and thereafter
she was shifted to Surya Multi Speciality Hospital. On these
allegations, complainant lodged First Information Report against the
present Applicants.
4. Learned counsel for Applicants and learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 2/complainant submit that the parties have reached
a mutual compromise and have amicably settled the dispute. It is
further submitted that the the parties have agreed not to repeat the
same offence in the future. Reliance is placed on the following
judgments :-
(I) Narindar Singh vs. State of Punjab
2014(2) MLJ (Cri) 365.
(ii) Sandip Pandurang Bawale vs. State of Maharashtra
2023 DGLS (Bom.) 133.
-3-
criappln58.26.odt
5. Perusal of the record indicates that the Applicants had
allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked present
Respondent by using sickle which has resulted into injuries.
Consequently, the First Information Report was lodged against the
Applicants.
6. The parties have now mediated the issue and unanimously
have agreed to settle the dispute and foster harmonious relations.
Accordingly, the Applicants have filed this application in order to
quash the proceedings. The said aspect is affirmed by Respondent
No. 2 by producing an affidavit-in-reply on record to that effect.
7. At this juncture, it would be opt to reproduce the observations
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh
(supra) as under :-
"28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though
it is a serious offence as the accused person 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
-4-
criappln58.26.odt
as well. Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet
incorporates the provisions 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
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.
8. Similarly, in the case of Sandip (supra) this Court has
reiterated and followed with the issue of quashing the non-
compoundable offences while exercising powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-5-
criappln58.26.odt
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident that
the parties have reached an amicable settlement and have decided to
maintain a cordial relationship. The continuance of proceedings
would definitely lead to abuse of process of law. Hence, I am inclined
to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to meet the ends of justice.
10. In the process, the entire State machinery has been misused by
the Applicants/Accused and Respondent No. 2 causing abuse of due
process of law. Thus, in my considered opinion, the Applications
warrant consideration subject to payment of cost by the litigating
parties.
11. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.
0769/2025 registered with Shevgaon Police Station,
District Ahiyanagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 324(4), 189(2), 333, 190,
191(2), 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is
quashed and set aside qua the present Applicants.
criappln58.26.odt
(iii) Present Applicants and Respondent No. 2 shall
deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with the
Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar alongwith a joint undertaking to that
effect to be filed before the learned Registrar (Judicial)
within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) The parties are also directed to state in the joint
undertaking that they will maintain cordial relations
with each other and would not cause any further conflict.
(v) Needless to state, non-compliance of aforesaid
directions shall result into recall of this order without
further reference to the Court.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
dyb
