Allowed¶7

1. Yash Sanjay Sale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Nov 2025WP/522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent quashing of FIR C.R. No. 625 of 2022, Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur; matrimonial cruelty case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC; wife versus husband and in-laws; amicable settlement and reconciliation affidavits (X, X-1); undertaking to withdraw other cases within 15 days; continued prosecution held futile, abuse of process, no possibility of conviction; quashed in terms of prayer clause (a); Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Writ Petition No. 522 of 2023; decided November 6, 2025; Karnik and Kadethankar, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); FIR bearing C.R. No. 625 of 2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur quashed and set aside. ¶7

1. Yash Sanjay Sale Vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); FIR bearing C.R. No. 625 of 2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur quashed and set aside.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing C.R. No. 625 of 2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, lodged at the behest of Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners, should be quashed, the parties having amicably settled their disputes and agreed to reside together.

¶2

Court's answer

No fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal prosecution of the Petitioners, as it would be an abuse of the process of Court, particularly since Respondent No.2 is not going to depose against them.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Continuing the criminal prosecution would only add to the agony of the parties, as there is no possibility of conviction.

¶7

Key takeaways

The parties' decision to reside together in the interest of their minor children is sufficient for the Court to quash the FIR.ratio¶7
The present petition deserves to be allowed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Writ Petition No. 522 of 2023, decided November 6, 2025 (M. S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.): The Court quashed and set aside FIR C.R. No. 625 of 2022 of Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, lodged by Respondent No.2 (wife) against Petitioner No.1 (husband) and his relatives (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Quashing was by consent: the parties had amicably resolved their disputes, filed affidavits (marked X and X-1), appeared personally in Court, and Respondent No.2 undertook to withdraw all cases mentioned in paragraph 5 of her affidavit within 15 days. Holding that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, that it would be an abuse of the process of Court, that Respondent No.2 would not depose and there was no possibility of conviction, and that the parties' decision to reside together in the interest of their two minor children sufficed, the Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶1

93 Wp-522-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 522 OF 2023

¶5

1]	Yash Sanjay Sale.	]
2]	Sneha Sanjay Sale.	]
3]	Tejas Sanjay Sale.	] ...Petitioners.
	*Versus*
1]	The State of Maharashtra	]
2]	Sonam Yash Sale.	] ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde, Darshan Singh and Chagdev Shingade for the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Hemant Surve for the Respondent No. 2.

¶7

——————

¶8

Coram : M. S. Karnik &

¶9

Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : November 6, 2025.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel

¶12

for the Respondent No.2.

¶13

2. The Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR bearing C.R. No. 625

¶14

of 2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, at the behest of Respondent No.2. Quashing is sought by consent of the Respondent No.2.

¶15

3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the relatives of Petitioner No.1. The

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

Patil-SR

¶18

93 Wp-522-2023.doc

¶19

Respondent No.2 (wife) iled the subject FIR against the Petitioners for the ofences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in the meantime, parties have decided to amicably resolve their disputes and misunderstandings. It has been stated that Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No. 2 will be residing together for the well being and in the interest of their two minor children.

¶21

5. The parties have placed on record two aidavits, one on behalf of Petitioner No.1 and the other on behalf of the Respondent No.2. Those aidavits are taken on record and marked “X” and “X-1” for identiication.

¶22

6. The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are personally present in Court and they are identiied by their respective advocates. Parties assure this Court that they have resolved their diferences and they will be residing together. It is further stated that Respondent No.2 shall be withdrawing all the cases mentioned in paragraph No.5 of her aidavit, within 15 days.

¶23

7. In the light of above, we are satisied that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the criminal prosecution of Petitioners as that will be only an abuse of the process of Court. The Respondent No.2 is not going to depose against the Petitioners, therefore, continuing the

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

Patil-SR

¶26

93 Wp-522-2023.doc

¶27

criminal prosecution of Petitioners will only add to the agony of parties as there is no possibility of conviction. In any case, it is a it case in view of the approach of parties which deserves appreciation and the fact that they have decided to reside together in the interest of their minor children is suicient for this Court to quash the FIR. In our opinion, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and FIR bearing C.R. No. 625 of 2022 registered with Vijapuar Naka Police Station, Solapur is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶28

[Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.]

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

Patil-SR

1. Yash Sanjay Sale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Yash Sanjay Sale v. State of Maharashtra

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

Ujjwala Kisan Kadam Vs Administrator and the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Vijayalaxmi Ashish Pawale @ Vijayalaxmi Ashokkumar Birajdar Vs T. S. Pawar and Ors.

Jaydeep S/O Raju Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Sagun Yesaji Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors.

Adhikrao S/O Rangrao Hajare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Secretary Finance Department

Suryakant S/O Dattu Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Finance Dept. and Ors.