Rohan Ramprasad Katkade v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:

2026.01.20 19:59:27 +0530 ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1659 OF 2025 Rohan Ramprasad Katkade.

... Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents.

--- Mr. Chetan S. Damre, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent/State. --- CORAM :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATE :

14th JANUARY, 2026.

_____ P.C. :

1.

By the present Application filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant has sought for the following substantive relief : (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR bearing C.R. No. 0625/2025 registered by the Respondent no. 2 herein (Org. Complainant) on 15th December, 2025 with the Panchavati Police Station, Nashik City, Dist. Nashik."

2.

Applicant is present in the court alongwith his Advocate Mr. Chetan Damare. Respondent No. 2 is present in court alongwith her Advocate Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav. 3.

Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has tendered affidavit dated 14th January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Advocate and Notary Mr. A.R. Surve alongwith copy of her Adhar Card, same are taken on record and marked "X colly." for identification. 4.

Respondent No. 2 (Snehal Yogesh Avhad) identifies her signature on the affidavit ("X colly") at point "A". Respondent No. 2 states that the affidavit ("X colly") is filed out her own free will and without any coercion or pressure from any person. She states that the contents of the paragraph Nos. 1 to 8 of the affidavit ("X colly") are as per her say. She by relying on the statements made by her in the affidavit ("X colly") states that she and the Applicant have amicably resolved the dispute and as such she does not intend to continue with the criminal proceedings. She states that she has no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR.

5.

Applicant states that the differences he had with the Respondent No.2 is amicably resolved.

6.

Mr. Chetan Damare and Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav jointly submit that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute, as such they submit that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 2 against the Applicant may not be continued and the same be quashed. 7.

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State submits that the FIR be quashed on the basis of the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 today before this Court as also the statements on oath made by her in the affidavit at "X colly." 8.

Considering the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit ("X" colly.) and the judicial pronouncement in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, I find that no purpose will be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue and it would meet the ends of justice to allow this Application. I therefore deem it fit and proper to exercise powers under Section (2012) 10 SCC 303

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the criminal proceedings which are subject matter of this Application. 9.

In view of the above, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, FIR bearing No. 625 of 2025 registered against the Applicant at Panchavati Police Station, Nashik is quashed.

10.

Criminal Application No. 1659 of 2025 is disposed of .. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)