Allowed¶16

Gunwantrao Harbaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC9 Sept 2025WP/1229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gunwantrao Harbaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1229 of 2024; decided 9 September 2025; coram Sandipkumar C. More and Mehroz K. Pathan, JJ.; quashing of F.I.R. Crime No. 38/2022 dated 24.02.2022, Udgir City Police Station; Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code; quashing on compromise; joint compromise purshis; voluntary signature verified by Registrar (Judicial); private complaint R.C.C. No.58/2022, J.M.F.C. Udgir, disposed of; FIR quashed to extent of petitioner only.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 registered with Udgir City Police Station quashed and set aside to the extent of the present petitioner. ¶16

Gunwantrao Harbaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 registered with Udgir City Police Station quashed and set aside to the extent of the present petitioner.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 registered with Udgir City Police Station should be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2 (original complainant) during the pendency of the petition.

¶12

Court's answer

The Court found the compromise genuine: the parties settled their dispute through the intervention of elder persons, filed joint compromise purshis, and the Learned Registrar (Judicial) reported that the parties voluntarily signed the purshis after admitting their contents.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The underlying private complaint R.C.C. No.58/2022 before J.M.F.C. Udgir, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged, had already been disposed of in view of the compromise.

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the compromise, the petition was allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 registered with Udgir City Police Station stands quashed and set aside to the extent of the present petitioner.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of F.I.R. on compromise — Criminal Writ Petition No. 1229 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench (Sandipkumar C. More and Mehroz K. Pathan, JJ., per curiam), decided 9 September 2025. Petitioner sought quashing of F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 dated 24.02.2022 (Udgir City Police Station) for offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. During pendency, petitioner and respondent No.2 (original complainant) settled the dispute through intervention of elders and filed joint compromise purshis; the Learned Registrar (Judicial) reported that the parties voluntarily signed the purshis after admitting their contents. The underlying private complaint R.C.C. No.58/2022 before J.M.F.C. Udgir, on which the F.I.R. was based, stood disposed of in view of the compromise. The Court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the F.I.R. to the extent of the present petitioner.

¶1

(1)

¶2

905 Cri.WP-1229.2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

905 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1229 OF 2024

¶5

GUNWANTRAO HARBAJI PATIL VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Mr. K.P. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.V. Lavate, A.P.P. for respondent-State. Ms. A.S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 9 SEPTEMBER 2025

¶10

Per Court :

¶11

Heard rival submissions.

¶12

By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 dated 24.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Udgir City Police Station. However, during pendency of this petition, compromise has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2 i.e. the original complainant. As such, now the petitioner is seeking quashing of F.I.R. on compromise.

¶13

The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have filed joint compromise purshis on record mentioning that due to intervention of the elder people, they have settled dispute

¶14

(2)

¶15

905 Cri.WP-1229.2024.odt

¶16

between themselves Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court has also submitted report mentioning that the parties, after admitting the contents of joint purshis, voluntarily signed the same. Further, it appears that a private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.58/2022 lodged by respondent No.2 before J.M.F.C. Udgir, based on which the aforesaid F.I.R. is lodged, has also been disposed of in view of the aforesaid compromise. In view of the same, the present petition is allowed and the F.I.R. in Crime No. 38/2022 registered with Udgir City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside to the extent of the present petitioner.

¶17

(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

VD_Dhirde

Gunwantrao Harbaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunwantrao Harbaji Patil 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

Raj Namdeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakuntalabai Ganpati Biradar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nandlal Babulal Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Dharma Pratap Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivraj Hanumantrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Machindra Shardul and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another