Allowed¶19

Rohan Gajendra Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2025WP/4558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal case with complainant's consent — matrimonial dispute; Sections 498-A/323/504/506 r/w 34 IPC; C.R. No. 38 of 2024, Alankar Police Station, Pune; R.C.C. No. 4552 of 2024, JMFC Court No. 4 Pune; Consent Terms before Family Court Pune; amicable settlement; no-objection affidavit dated 2.9.2025; personal appearance of informant; Article 226 writ petition; Bombay High Court; Criminal Writ Petition 4558/2025; allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of R.C.C. No. 4552 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 4), Pune, arising out of C.R. No. 38 of 2024 registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune; Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). ¶19

Rohan Gajendra Pawar and Ors. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 4552 of 2024 (JMFC Court No. 4, Pune), arising out of C.R. No. 38 of 2024 (Alankar Police Station, Pune) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and the informant Respondent No.2's consent/no objection.

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement (Consent Terms executed before the Family Court at Pune) and Respondent No.2's affirmed and personally reiterated 'No Objection', the Court allowed the Petition in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., granted the quashing sought.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the statement of Respondent No.2, who was personally present and through her Advocate reiterated her 'No Objection' for quashing of the crime in question.

¶19

Key takeaways

It is recorded that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 executed Consent Terms before the Family Court at Pune and that all disputes between the parties stand settled amicably; accordingly Respondent No.2 supports the prayers in the Petition and, in Para 5 of her Affidavit, has given her no objection for quashing of the said crime.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Art. 226, Constitution of India) — Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, W.P. No. 4558 of 2025, decided 2 September 2025 (A.S. Gadkari & Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.). Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 sought quashing of R.C.C. No. 4552 of 2024 pending before JMFC (Court No. 4), Pune, arising out of C.R. No. 38 of 2024 dated 6 March 2024, Alankar Police Station, Pune, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, laid with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant. Respondent No.2's Affidavit of 2 September 2025 recorded Consent Terms executed before the Family Court, Pune, amicable settlement of all disputes, and her no objection to quashing (Para 5); she personally appeared and, through her Advocate, reiterated her 'No Objection'. On that basis the Petition was ALLOWED in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶1

KVM 52 - WP 4558-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHANVINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date:2025.09.11 16:22:45 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4558 OF 2025

¶5

Rohan Gajendra Pawar & Ors. … Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Ms. Samruddhi Bendbhar i/b. Parinam Law Associates for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 – State. Ms.Trupti Ashok Bharadi for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 2^nd SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No.2

¶13

have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the R.C.C.No. 4552 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 4), Pune, arising out of C.R.No. 38 of 2024 dated 6^th March, 2024 registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶14

Ms. Bharadi, learned Advocate appears for Respondent No.2 and submitted that she will file her Vakalatnama during the course of the

¶15

1/2

¶16

KVM 52 - WP 4558-2025.doc

¶17

day. The said statement is accepted.

¶18

Ms.Bharadi, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 tendered across the bar her Affidavit dated 2^nd September, 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have executed Consent Terms before the Family Court at Pune. That, all the disputes between the parties herein have now been settled amicably and therefore she is supporting the prayers made in the present Petition. In Para No.(5) thereof, the Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for quashing of the said crime.

¶19

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 2^nd September, 2025 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question. The said statement is accepted. 4) In view thereof, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶21

2/2

Rohan Gajendra Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Gajendra Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Kalpesh Ishwarlal Patel vs Ila Pravin Solani and Anr.

Ramesh B. Pokhriyal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Faizan Ahsan vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Ali Noormohammad Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devi Prasad Biswal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Krishna Shantaram Chamankar and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.