Sneha Namdev Kamble v. Gaurang Prakash Sawant

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2026 Mahesh Ramesh Jaiswal & others ....Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents Mr. P. K. Nikam, Advocate for Applicants.

Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for the State.

Ms. K. S. Sarin, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2026.

PER COURT :

1.

Applicants have preferred this application invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing RCC No. 1095/2024 and order of issuance of process passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon on 31.12.2024 on the basis of the First Information Report No. 0149/2024 registered with Jilhapeth Police Station, Jalgaon District Jalgaon for the offence under Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The brief facts leading to Criminal Application can be narrated as under :-

- 2 - Respondent No. 2/wife filed a complaint on 18.05.2024 with Jilhapeth Police Station, alleging therein that her marriage with Applicant No. 1 was solemnised on 23.03.2022. Appplicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the relatives of Applicant No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that since the date of marriage, Applicant No. 1 along with other Applicants illtreated Respondent No. 2 physically and mentally. It is further alleged that Applicant No. 1 is having illicit relations with his cousin sister name Deepali Jaiswal. Respondent No. 2/wife has further alleged that on account of ill-treatement by all the Applicants, she had to left her matrimonial house. On the basis of these allegations, First Information Report came to be registered under Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned Cousnel for Applicants and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2/informant submit that the parties have reached a mutual compromise and have amicably settled the dispute. 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 - 4.

The parties have now mediated the issue and unanimously have agreed to settle all the disputes pending between them and have filed the Consent Terms into writing in M.C.A. No. 129/2024. 5.

At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the observations rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Curt 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 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.

- 4 - 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. 6.

Similarly, in the case of Sandip (supra) this Court has reiterated and followed with the issue of quashing the noncompoundable offences while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7.

In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident that the parties have reached an amicable settlement and have decided to settle all the disputes between them. 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.

- 5 - 8.

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.

9.

Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) Proceeding of RCC No. 1095/2024 and order of issuance of process passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon on 31.12.2024 on the basis of the First Information Report No. 0149/2024 registered with Jilhapeth Police Station, Jalgaon District Jalgaon for the offence under Sections 323, 498(A), 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code stand quashed and set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Respondent No. 2.

(iii) 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