Yuvraj Madhukar Dhondage v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 607 OF 2026 Yuvraj Madhukar Dhondage ... Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

... Respondents --- Mr. Rahul Gaikwad a/w Shantanu Katkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kedar Nhavkar, for the Respondent No. 2.

Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, for Respondent - State.

------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of BNSS, is preferred by the Petitioner for quashing the FIR bearing No. 58/2025 dated 25th April, 2025 registered with Trimbakeshwar Police Station, Nashik, for the offences punishable under Section 351(2), 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

2.

Petitioner in present in Court with his Advocate Mr. Rahul Gaikwad.

3.

Respondent No.2 in present in Court with her Advocate Mr. Kedar Nhavkar .

4.

Mr. Rahul Gaikwad and Mr. Kedar Nhavkar submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 after having resolved their differences have married to each other and are staying together as husband and wife. They therefore submit that the criminal proceedings filed by the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner may not be continued and the same be quashed. 5.

Mr. Rahul Gaikwad tender affidavit affirmed by the Respondent No.2 on 5th February, 2026 before the Notary S. N. Dhange, Mumbai, along with the photostat copy of the Aadhar Card, same are taken on record and marked 'X-2' and 'X-1', respectively, for identification.

6.

Respondent No.2 states that the said affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from

any person. She states that the contents of the affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She states that she and the Petitioner are staying together as husband and wife.

7.

Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP for the State, submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, now having married, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. She submits that the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings may be quashed, based on the affidavit at (X-2) and the statements today made before this Court by the Advocates representing the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.

8.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Thakur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr1, after considering the parties to the said proceedings having reconciled their differences and married, with the intervention of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the conviction of the Appellant under section 376 (2) (n) and 417 of IPC and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent therein. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2927

9.

In the instant case, Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 are happily married and staying together as husband and wife, as submitted by the Mr. Rahul Gaikwad and Mr. Kedar Nhavkar and as admitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 2. Considering the facts as placed before me, the settlement arrived between the parties, the statements made on oath by the Respondent No. 2 (X-2) and guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.2, I deem it fit and proper to exercise powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings.

10.

This Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the FIR No. 58 of 2025 registered at Trimbakeshwar Police Station, Nashik under Section 351(2), 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and u/s 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 is quashed .

11.

Writ Petition No. 607 of 2026 is disposed.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (2017) 9 SCC 641.