Hhrushikesh Bhaskar Pawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hhrushikesh Bhaskar Pawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR C.R. No.148/2024 (Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik) and the consequent criminal prosecution quashed and set aside; Petition disposed of, subject to the Petitioners paying Rs.4,75,000/- to Respondent No.2 within eight weeks and producing her acknowledgment in the Registry, failing which the matter is to be listed and the order is liable to be recalled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR registered vide C.R. No.148/2024 at Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik and the consequent charge-sheet/criminal prosecution under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC against the five Petitioners ought to be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the matter is settled between the parties, society at large is not involved, and Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have decided to go their separate ways, the Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings, subject to the apprehension expressed by Respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

The quashing is made subject to the condition of the Petitioners paying Rs.4,75,000/- to Respondent No.2 within eight weeks and producing her acknowledgment in the Registry within that period.

Key takeaways

If the amount is not paid and the acknowledgment is not produced in the Registry, the matter is to be listed for further consideration and the quashing order shall be liable to be recalled.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Matrimonial dispute — FIR C.R. No.148/2024 of Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik and consequent charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC against five Petitioners (husband, his parents, his sister and her husband) — Parties settled the matter; Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 (wife/complainant) decided to obtain divorce; Respondent No.2 filed affidavit-in-reply giving no objection to quashing and consented in Court subject to payment of the unpaid commitment of Rs.4,75,000/- — Matter settled, society at large not involved — FIR and consequent criminal prosecution quashed and set aside, subject to payment of Rs.4,75,000/- to Respondent No.2 within eight weeks and production of her acknowledgment in the Registry; on default, matter to be listed for further consideration and order liable to be recalled — Petition disposed of (Sarang V. Kotwal & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.; 07.03.2025).

: 1 : 21-wp-2114-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2114 OF 2024

Hrushikesh Bhaskar Pawar and others …..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .….Respondents

Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for the Petitioners. Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Akshata Desai, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 07^th MARCH, 2025

P.C. :

1. This is a Petition for quashing of the FIR registered vide

C.R. No.148/2024 at Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik and

the resultant charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.

2. The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. The

Petitioner No.1 is her husband. The Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are his

parents. The Petitioner No.4 is his sister. The Petitioner No.5 is husband of the Petitioner No.4.

1 of 4

Deshmane(PS)

: 2 : 21-wp-2114-24.odt

3. Heard Mr. Akshay Bankapur, learned counsel for the

Petitioners, Smt. M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Akshata Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

4. The Respondent No.2, in her FIR, has stated that she got married with the Petitioner No.1 on 18.5.2022. Shortly thereafter the Petitioners started demanding Rs.50 Lakhs. She was told to bring that amount from her father. The reason was that they had purchased an agricultural land for Rs.90 Lakhs, therefore, they wanted the Respondent No.2’s father to pay that amount of Rs.50 Lakhs. There are allegations that the mother-in-law used to say that enough ornaments were not given in the marriage. The main allegations are made by the Respondent No.2 in the FIR itself.

5. The parties have now settled the matter. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have decided to obtain divorce. The Respondent No.2 has filed her affidavit-in-reply giving her no objection for quashing of these proceedings.

6. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated before the Court that she has no objection for quashing of 2 of 4

: 3 : 21-wp-2114-24.odt

the proceedings provided that the Petitioners honour their

commitment to pay the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to her which they have not yet paid.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners have every intention to honour their commitment and though the matter can be disposed of today, but, it can be kept for compliance and if the amount is not paid to the Respondent No.2, this order can be recalled.

8. We have considered this situation. The matter is settled between the parties. The society at large is not involved. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 have decided to go their separate ways. Therefore, we are inclined quash the criminal proceedings subject to the apprehension expressed by the Respondent No.2.

9. Hence, the following order:

:: O R D E R ::

i. The FIR registered vide C.R. No.148/2024 at Panchavati Police Station, District-Nashik as well as the consequent criminal prosecution, are quashed and set aside.

3 of 4

: 4 : 21-wp-2114-24.odt

ii. This order is subject to the condition of the Petitioners

paying Rs.4,75,000/- to the Respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks from today and producing an acknowledgment issued by the Respondent No.2 in the Registry within that period. If such an acknowledgment is produced in the Registry, there shall be no further reference before the Court. But, if the amount is not paid and an acknowledgment to that effect is not produced in the Registry, then the matter be listed for further consideration; and in that case this order shall be liable to be recalled.

iii. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Deshmane (PS)

Digitally signed byPRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2025.03.15 10:39:08 +0530

4 of 4