Ganesh Sudam Ramkar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:8364-DB -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 926 OF 2024 GANESH SUDAM RAMKAR AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakde APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Y. S. Chaudhari ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

Date : 25th February, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

The applicants have moved this Court seeking to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 105 of 2021 registered with Parner Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and eventual charge-sheet bearing Sessions Case No. 507 of 2021 pending before the Sessions Court, Parner.

2.

The learned Counsel for applicants and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the parties have reached a mutual compromise and amicably settled the dispute. It is further submitted parties are resolute to resolve all grievances in relation to the FIR through mutual intervention. The learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has verified the terms of compromise.

-23.

Admittedly, the present application is presented under Section 528 of BNSS / 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet on the grounds that the informant and applicants (accused) have reached an amicable settlement. The applicants and the informant i.e. respondent No. 2 has filed joint compromise indicating that the dispute has been resolved and the same has been verified.

4.

At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the observations rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narindar Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(2) MLJ (Cri) 365], as under :- "28. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) 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 IPC as well.

Therefore, only because FIR/Charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC 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.

-3the 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 IPC, 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 IPC were unnecessary included in the charge sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties. "

5.

In view of the fact that the nature of proceeding and aforesaid precedents, it is evident that the informant and the applicants (accused) have reached an amicable settlement regarding the dispute. Considering that the dispute has been resolved, the parties have decided to maintain a cordial relationship, the continuance of these criminal proceedings, in light of the informant's resolute to resolve the issue, would lead to a futile trial and a definite abuse of the process of law. Therefore, I am inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to meet the ends of justice and quash the proceedings against the applicant.

6.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (B).

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi