Ravindra Shrikant Pingale v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR NIKITA KAILAS DARADE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2025.10.09 19:37:53 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.3848 OF 2024 Kunda Shrikant Pingale and Ors.
...Petitioners
versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3849 OF 2024 Ravindra Shrikant Pingale
...Petitioners
versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents .....
Mr. Kalpesh Patil, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rupesh Bobade a/w Mr. Priyal Sarda for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, APP for the State.
.....
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2025.
P.C:
1.
These petitions have been filed by the husband and in-laws of the Respondent No.2-Complainant, seeking quashing of FIR being C. R. No.552 of 2024 registered with Barshi City Police Station on 7th July, 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably settled the
dispute before the Mediation Center in divorce petition. He tenders the copy of the decree which has been passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Barshi.
3.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has tendered a consent affidavit of Respondent No.2-Complainant, giving her no objection for quashing of C. R. No.552 of 2024. The same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Respondent No.2 is present through video conferencing.
4.
We have interacted with the Respondent No.2-Complainant and she has reiterated the terms of the consent terms. Her identity is verified by the Counsel and by her Aadhar Card which is placed on record. We are satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and that the Respondent No.2-Complainant has no objection for quashing of the proceedings.
5.
The proceedings arise out of the matrimonial discord and the parties have obtained the decree of divorce and amicably settled the dispute.
6.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also placed on record the pursis by the Respondent No.2-Complainant admitting the acceptance of the permanent alimony. The dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and we see no reason to permit the continuance of the criminal prosecution as the same would be an exercise in futility. We
draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466. As the parties have separated amicably and have moved ahead in life, the continuance of the criminal prosecution is not desirable.
7.
In light of the above, the petitions are allowed. 8.
The FIR bearing No.552 of 2024 registered with Barshi City Police Station, Dist. Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 504, 506, read with 34 of the IPC are herein quashed and set aside.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]