Allowed¶39

Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026APL/1029/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing of FIR; matrimonial dispute; amicable settlement; mutual consent divorce consent terms; Family Court No. 09 Pune Petition A.802 of 2025; consent affidavit Respondent No. 2; Nanded City Police Station Pune; R.C.C. No. 4416/2025; 18-JMFC Anti-Corruption Pune; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Bombay High Court Criminal Application 1029 of 2025; Ashwin D. Bhobe; FIR and chargesheet quashed proceedings closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition/Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): FIR dated 27th May, 2025 (Nanded City Police Station, Pune), the charge-sheet (R.C.C. No. 4416 of 2025, 18th JMFC Anti-Corruption, Pune) and consequential proceedings quashed; proceedings arising out of the said crime closed; Criminal Application No. 1029 of 2025 disposed of in the above terms. ¶39

Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 27/05/2025 lodged with Nanded City Police Station, Pune, the chargesheet thereon and the consequential proceedings (R.C.C. No. 4416/2025, 18-JMFC Anti-Corruption, Pune) should be quashed, the matrimonial dispute underlying them having been amicably resolved before the Family Court.

¶31

Court's answer

Considering the joint submissions of learned Advocates, the statements of the Applicants and Respondent No. 2, and the documents marked 'X' and 'X-1', and guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Court deemed it fit and proper to exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In terms of prayer clause (a), the FIR dated 27th May, 2025 lodged with Nanded City Police Station, Pune and the charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 4416 of 2025 on the file of the 18th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anti Corruption, Pune stand quashed, and proceedings arising out of the said crime are closed.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., 12 January 2026 — Criminal Application No. 1029 of 2025: Where the FIR dated 27/05/2025 lodged with Nanded City Police Station, Pune (arising from matrimonial discord between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2), its chargesheet and consequent proceedings (R.C.C. No. 4416/2025, 18-JMFC Anti-Corruption, Pune) were sought to be quashed, and the parties had amicably resolved the dispute before the Family Court No. 09, Pune via consent terms dated 10.12.2025 in Petition No. A.802 of 2025 (marked 'X') and Respondent No. 2's consent affidavit dated 12.01.2026 affirming free will (marked 'X-1'), with the State (through the APP) concurring, the Court, guided by Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, exercised power under Section 528 of the BNSS: FIR and charge-sheet quashed, proceedings arising out of the crime closed, and the Application allowed and disposed of.

¶1

20-APL-1029-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2026.01.14 22:09:56 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2025

¶5

Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni & Ors. … Applicants

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amol Jagtap, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶9

Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent - State. Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni for Applicant No. 1, present in Court.

¶11

Mrs. Madhura Kaustubh Kulkarni, for Respondent No. 2, present in Court.

¶12

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 12^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

By the present Application, the Applicants have sought the following substantive reliefs :-

¶15

“A. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR dated 27/05/2025 lodged with Nanded City Police Station, Pune alongwith the chargesheet and consequential proceedings bearing R.C.C. No. 4416/2025 pending before 18-Judicial Magistrate F.C. Anti – Corruption, Pune.”

Gayatri shimpi

20-APL-1029-2025.doc

Applicants along with their Advocate Mr. Amol Jagtap are present in Court. Respondent No. 2 is also present before this Court with her Advocate Ms. Surbhi Agrawal. Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 undertakes to her the Vakalatnama in the Registry.

¶20

Mr. Amol Jagtap and Ms. Surbhi Agrawal jointly tender a copy of the consent terms for mutual consent divorce filed by the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 in Petition No. A.802 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court No. 09, Pune, at Pune. Said consent terms are arrived at and signed before the Marriage Counsellor, Family Court, Pune. Signed copy of the consent terms dated 10^th December, 2025 is taken on record and marked as ‘ X ’ for identification.

¶21

Applicants states that the family dispute between them and the Respondent No. 1 is amicably resolved before the Family Court. Applicant No. 1 states that he has signed the consent terms dated 10.12.2025 marked as ‘X’.

Gayatri shimpi

20-APL-1029-2025.doc

Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has tenders consent affidavit dated 12^th January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before Notary Advocate S. N. Dange. Respondent No. 2 states that the said affidavit is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. She refers to paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the affidavit. Said affidavit dated 12^th January, 2026 with pagination Nos. 101 to 103 is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification Respondent No. 2 has reiterated before this Court, the statements made by her in paragraph Nos.1 to 5 of the affidavit. She identifies her signature at point A . She states that the FIR was lodged on account of a matrimonial discord between her and the Applicants. She submits that she and the Applicants have resolved the dispute before the Family Court as recorded in the documents marked as

¶26

‘X’ .

¶27

Mr. Amol Jagtap and Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Respondent No. 2, respectively, jointly submit that the marriage between the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 has irretrievably broken down. They submit that

Gayatri shimpi

20-APL-1029-2025.doc

the Applicant No.1 as well as the Respondent No. 2 have decided to amicably part ways. They therefore submit that the Criminal proceedings filed by the Respondent No. 2 against the Applicants may not be continued and the same be quashed.

¶32

Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the State submits that the Applicant No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2, having decided to part ways and having amicably resolved their matrimonial issues, the FIR as well as the Criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.

¶33

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates, statements of the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2, documents marked as ‘ X’ and ‘ X1’ and guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr¹ . I deem it fit and proper to exercise power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the Criminal proceedings.

¶34

1(2017) 9 SCC 641)

Gayatri shimpi

20-APL-1029-2025.doc

In view of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The FIR dated 27^th May, 2025 lodged with Nanded City Police Station, Pune along with the charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 4416 of 2025 on the file of 18^th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anti Corruption, Pune are quashed. Proceedings arising out of the said crime are closed.

¶39

Criminal Application No. 1029 of 2025 is disposed of

¶40

in the above said terms.

¶41

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶42

¶43

Gayatri shimpi

Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaustubh Jayant Kulkarni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Jaywantrao Shelke vs State of Maharashtra

Shreya Anand Sankhe @ Shreya Shamraj Pathak vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jayshri Nilesh Pathare vs Deputy Director and Anr.

Vilas Hari Shela vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Danish Rafiq Fansophkar vs State of Maharashtra

Shadab Mohd Rafique Qureshi and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.