Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Sept 2025APPLN/194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal case on matrimonial compromise/consent terms; Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 34 IPC; FIR Crime No. 501 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023; R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023, JMFC Aurangabad; PWDVA No. 459 of 2023 maintenance settlement of Rs. 4,50,000/-; Registrar (Judicial) verification report 09.09.2025; Criminal Application No. 194 of 2024; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:25255-DB; coram Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; decided 16 September 2025; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 194 of 2024 allowed; proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023 (arising out of FIR vide Crime No. 501 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023, Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC) pending before the JMFC, Aurangabad quashed and set aside as against all seven applicants. ¶¶21

Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan and Others Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the settlement between the applicants and respondent No. 2, her consent terms and her lack of objection, the criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023 (FIR Crime No. 501 of 2023, Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC) should be quashed against the applicants. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

In view of the settlement and the verified consent terms, the criminal application is allowed and the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023, arising out of FIR vide Crime No. 501 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023 for offences under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, stand quashed and set aside as against all seven applicants.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Since the consent terms were verified by the learned Registrar (Judicial), who submitted his report on 09.09.2025, and respondent No. 2 had no objection to quashment, there was no hurdle in accepting the settlement.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Non-attendance of applicants No. 4 and 6 before the learned Registrar (Judicial) for verification did not raise any question of identity dispute because the matter arose out of a matrimonial dispute.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ., per court, 16 September 2025), allowed Criminal Application No. 194 of 2024 and quashed proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023 (arising out of FIR vide Crime No. 501 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC) as against all seven applicants. The quashing rested on the settlement between the applicants and respondent No. 2: under a compromise in PWDVA No. 459 of 2023 before the JMFC, Aurangabad, respondent No. 2 had received Rs. 4,50,000/- from applicant No. 1 towards full and final settlement of maintenance and the parties had decided to part ways; respondent No. 2 had no objection to quashment; and the consent terms were verified by the learned Registrar (Judicial), whose report was submitted on 09.09.2025. Non-appearance of applicants No. 4 and 6 before the Registrar raised no question of identity dispute, the matter having arisen out of a matrimonial dispute.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:25255-DB

¶2

6-CRIAPPLN-194-24.odt

¶3

{1}

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2024

¶6

Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Service. 2. Khamar Begum Razik Khan Age: 44 years, Occ: Housewife.

¶7

Razik Khan Gulam Dastagir Khan Age: 50 years, Occ: service.

¶8

Shakir Khan Gulam Dastagir Khan Age: 56, Occ: service. 5. Faisal Khan Shakir Khan Age: 20, Occ: service. 6. Waheeda Begum Shakir Khan Age: 48 years, Occ: service. 7. Naseer Khan Dastagir Khan Age: 52, Occ: service. Applicants no. 1 to 7 are all R/o. 5/3/92, Near Asurkhanaa, Shadi Kahana, Osmanapura, Aurangabad. … Applicants

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, Through Cantonment (Chanwni) Police Station, Tq. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Seema Begum Mujaheed Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Housework Current R/o Plot no. 72, DarshaniColony, Aurangabad City, Aurangabad, Ravraspura, Padegaon … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Umesh Gite, Advocate h/f Mr. V.P. Bakal, Advocate for Applicants Mr. A.D. Wange, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. Avinash Barhate Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶12

6-CRIAPPLN-194-24.odt

¶13

{2}

¶14

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶16

PER COURT :-

¶17

The applicants and the respondent No. 2 have settled their dispute and the consent terms have been produced. The brother-in-law and sister-in-law i.e. applicants No. 4 and 6 was not present before the learned Registrar (Judicial) for verification, but since the matter arose out of the matrimonial dispute, there is in fact no question of identity dispute.

¶18

A compromise was placed on record in proceedings bearing PWDVA No. 459 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, wherein, as per the terms of the compromise, respondent No. 2 has received an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- from applicant No. 1 towards full and final settlement of maintenance, and both parties have decided to part their ways. Now, respondent No.2 has no objection for quashment of the proceedings. The terms and conditions have been verified by the learned Registrar (Judicial) and he has submitted the report on 09.09.2025, therefore, there is no hurdle in accepting the settlement. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

¶19

6-CRIAPPLN-194-24.odt

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) Criminal application stands allowed

¶22

(ii) Proceedings in R.C.C. No. 2875 of 2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad arising out of FIR vide Crime No. 501 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023 fo offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, stand quashed and set aside as against all the applicants namely, (1) Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan, (2) Khamar Begum Razik Khan, (3) Razik Khan Gulam Dastagir Khan, (4) Shakir Khan Gulam Dastagir Khan, (5) Faisal Khan Shakir Khan (6) Waheeda Begum Shakir Khan and (7) Naseer Khan Dastagir Khan.

¶23

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

S P Rane

Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujahed Khan Dastagir Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Thakurdas Diyalani and Another vs the Governmetn of India and Others

Sunil Mishrilal Bafna Thr Lrs Anshul and Another vs the Govt. of India and Others

Chandramal P Galani Died Thr Lrs Narayan Chandramal Galani and Others vs the Govt. of India and Others

Rustum Dasrao Rathod and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Jyoti Kisanrao Bagulwad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Akhtar Bee W/O Sayyed Lal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another