Dhiraj Ramchandra Khedkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2025 Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date:

2025.10.09 21:16:55 +0530 Dr. Dhiraj Ramchandra Khedkar ... Petitioner UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents ...........

Mr. Shantanu Manoj Sharma a/w Dhananjay Krishanath Bhosle, Mr. Vikas Wagh for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Kothari a/w Mr. Pradeep Salgar for the respondent no.2 Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the respondent - State. ...........

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

Date : October 09, 2025.

P. C. :

1.

The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 61 of 2018 lodged with the Chiplun Police Station, Ratnagiri on 2nd April 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 337, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with charge-sheet bearing No.40 of 2018 and the consequential proceeding bearing SCC No. 291 of 2018 pending before the JMFC, Chiplun.

2.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that in writ petition filed 1 of

before the Principal Seat at Bombay, consent terms were entered into between the parties which is annexed at Page 61 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Clauses 9, 11 and 12 of the consent terms wherein the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings filed by them against each other and in particular, quashing of the FIR which is the subject matter of the present petition.

3.

Respondent no.2 is present through VC and reiterated that she has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR and consequential proceedings. She has further admitted that the consent terms have been filed, whereby the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings filed by them against each other.

4.

We have perused the consent terms and have interacted with the respondent no.2. The parties have settled their dispute and have agreed to withdraw all proceedings filed against each other. The consent terms also records that the petitioner herein will file criminal writ petition for quashing of FIR and for that no objection will be given by the respondent no.2. In pursuance of the consent terms, respondent no.2 has accorded her no objection for quashing of FIR.

2 of

5.

Considering that the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord, which has been amicably settled between the parties, we find that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing with the criminal prosecution against the petitioner. In light of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).

[ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik ] 3 of