Sanket Hiralal Patil And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AUG:8076 :: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2026 Sanket Hiralal Patil & ors.

... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT .......

Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for respondent - State .......

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2026 PER COURT :

1.

By this Petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashment of the F.I.R. bearing Crime No.670/2025, registered with Ahilyanagar Camp Police Station, Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(k)(i)(m), 91, 75(1)(2), 351(2)(3), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the parties have reached a mutual compromise and have amicably

:: 2 ::

settled the dispute out of Court by free will and wish of the parties. As such, present petition is presented 'jointly' by the parties. It is further submitted that, they will live peacefully and maintain cordial relations with each other. Apart from the present F.I.R. there is no any other proceeding filed between the parties and that they will not indulge in any illegal activity against each other and will not claim damages from each other. As such, prayed to quash the proceedings.

3.

At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the observations rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 365 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.

:: 3 ::

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. On that basis, if it is found that there is 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.

4.

Similarly, in the case of Sandip Pandurang Bawale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 DGLS (Bom.) 133, 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.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and precedents, it is evident that the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The continuance of proceedings would definitely lead to abuse of process of law. Therefore, I am inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to meet the ends of justice, however, by imposing costs. 6.

Hence the following order :

:: 4 ::

O R D E R

(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The F.I.R. bearing Crime No.670/2025, registered with Ahilyanagar Camp Police Station, Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(k)(i)(m), 91, 75(1)(2), 351(2)(3), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed.

(iii) The petitioner No.1/ accused shall deposit an amount of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with this Court within a period of four weeks from today and same shall be forthwith remitted to the Government Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad.

(iv) Needless to state, non-compliance of directions shall result into recall of this order without further reference to the Court.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-