Allowed¶6

Sagar Namdeo Bagal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2025WP/5095/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent/settlement-based quashing of FIR C.R. No.184/2018 (Bhoiwada police station, Mumbai; Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC) and consequent Case No.PW/1104/2019 (JMFC, 29th Court, Sewree, Mumbai); matrimonial dispute between husband, in-laws and wife; complainant's affidavit and in-court no objection; receipt of agreed settlement amount; Bombay High Court Criminal Writ Petition No.5095 of 2025; Kotwal & Chandak JJ.; decision date 01-10-2025; no purpose in continuing criminal proceedings post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

FIR C.R. No.184/2018 (Bhoiwada police station, Mumbai) and the consequent proceedings Case No.PW/1104/2019 (Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 29th Court, Sewree, Mumbai) quashed and set aside; Petition disposed of accordingly. ¶6

Sagar Namdeo Bagal and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR (C.R. No.184/2018, Bhoiwada police station) and the consequent criminal proceedings (No.PW/1104/2019, JMFC, 29th Court, Sewree, Mumbai) should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties and the complainant's no objection.

¶1

Court's answer

Where the parties to the dispute have settled their differences and the complainant (Respondent No.2) has no objection to quashing, no purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings; the Court was therefore inclined to allow the Petition.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The FIR being C.R. No.184/2018 registered at Bhoiwada police station, Mumbai, as well as the consequent proceedings being Case No.PW/1104/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 29th Court, Sewree, Mumbai, are quashed and set aside.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Sarang V. Kotwal & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., 01.10.2025), Criminal Writ Petition No.5095 of 2025 — Quashing of FIR C.R. No.184/2018 registered at Bhoiwada police station, Mumbai on 6.9.2018 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC, and consequent proceedings No.PW/1104/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 29th Court, Sewree, Mumbai, arising out of a matrimonial dispute — Parties settled their disputes and quashing was sought by consent; Respondent No.2 (the complainant) filed an affidavit referring to the settlement terms and receipt of the agreed amount, giving her no objection, and reiterated the same in Court — Held: no purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings; FIR and consequent proceedings quashed and set aside; Petition disposed of accordingly (paras 3, 5, 6).

¶1

29-wp-5095-25.odt

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5095 OF 2025

¶5

Sagar Namdeo Bagal and others …..Petitioners

¶6

Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shrikant S. Shirsath, Advocate a/w. Ravindra S. Lihinar, Sapna D. Hajare for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms. Sangita Phad, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶9

Mr. Sufian Qureshi @ S. Pagarkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE : 01^st OCTOBER, 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. This Petition is for quashing of the proceedings

¶14

bearing No.PW/1104/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 29^th Court, Sewree, Mumbai arising out

¶15

of C.R. No.184/2018 registered at Bhoiwada police station,

¶16

Mumbai on 6.9.2018 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC.

¶17

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANE PRADIPKUMARPRAKASHRAODESHMANEDate: 2025.10.06 16:09:30 +0530

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

Deshmane(PS)

¶20

: 2 : 29-wp-5095-25.odt

¶21

2. Heard Mr. Shrikant Shirsath, learned counsel for

¶22

the Petitioners, Ms. Sangita Phad, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sufian Qureshi @ S. Pagarkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶23

3. The Respondent No.2 had lodged this FIR. The Petitioner No.1 was her husband. The Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are his parents. The Petitioner No.4 is his brother. The Petitioner No.5 is the wife of Petitioner No.4 and the Petitioner No.6 is the sister of the Petitioner No.1. The parties have settled their disputes and, therefore, prayer is made for quashing of the proceedings by consent. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to the allegations in the FIR in detail.

¶24

4. Briefly stated, the allegations are that, the Respondent No.2 got acquainted with the Petitioner No.1 in the year 2012. They decided to get married. They had their physical relations. Since the relationship had reached that level, the Respondent No.2 had to get married with the Petitioner No.1. Taking advantage of the situation, he was demanding money. Her father paid Rs.2 Lakhs in cheque to the

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

: 3 : 29-wp-5095-25.odt

¶27

Petitioners, but, they wanted Rs.4 Lakhs more. Their demands went on increasing. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 lodged her complaint on 11.6.2017. After that the Petitioners showed willingness to perform marriage. The marriage took place on 18.8.2017. The FIR thereafter mentions that she was continuously ill treated. The Petitioners were forcing her to withdraw the complaint which she has filed at Bhoiwada police station. Because of their pressure, she withdrew that complaint. The FIR thereafter goes on to mention different instances of ill-treatment and demand of money. The Petitioners used to spread rumors against her character. On 18.2.2018 she went back to reside with her parents because of the extreme ill-treatment. Her Stridhan was misappropriated. On these allegations, the FIR is lodged.

¶28

5. The charge-sheet contains statements of her parents and other neighbours. Her parents have supported her allegations. Now the matter is completely settled between the parties. The Respondent No.2 has filed her affidavit. She has referred to the settlement terms. She has received the agreed

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

: 4 : 29-wp-5095-25.odt

¶31

amount. She has given her no objection for quashing of the present proceedings. She is present in the Court. She is identified by her learned counsel. She reiterated the contents in the affidavit and submitted before the Court that she has no objection for quashing of these proceedings. In this situation, no purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, we are inclined to allow this Petition.

¶32

6. Hence, the following order:

¶33

:: O R D E R ::

¶34

i. The FIR being C.R. No.184/2018 registered at Bhoiwada police station, Mumbai as well as the consequent proceedings being Case No.PW/1104/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 29^th Court, Sewree, Mumbai, are quashed and set aside.

¶35

ii. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶37

Deshmane (PS)

¶38

4 of 4

Sagar Namdeo Bagal and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Namdeo Bagal and Ors. v. 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

Viren Vinod Ahuja vs Union of India through Its Secretary

Faiyaz Abdul Rauf Shaikh and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tousif Ishaque Sayyed vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shabana Usman Darvesh vs Union Bank of India

Shabana Usman Darvesh vs Union Bank of India

Deepen Arun Parekh vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs