Allowed

Dr Amol Tukaram Yamgar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2026APL/17/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR No. 0106 of 2023 (Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane) and charge-sheet C.C. No. RCC/3850/2023 (4th Jt. CJJD/JMFC, Thane) under Section 528, Bharatiaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; matrimonial dispute (S. 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w S. 34 IPC) amicably settled; complainant-wife's voluntary affidavit (X-2, dt. 3.2.2026) of no objection; State APP concurred; reliance on Gian Sin

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c): FIR No. 0106 of 2023 (Vartak Nagar Police Station) and charge-sheet C.C. No. RCC/3850/2023 pending before the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Jud

Dr Amol Tukaram Yamgar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.02.10 11:26:13 +0530 913.APL17.2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2026

¶4

Amol Tukaram Yamgar & Ors.

¶5

… Applicants.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

… Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Rahul Hande, Mr. Rahul Hande, Ms. Prajakta Khedekar, Advocate for Applicants.

¶10

Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare a/w. Mr. Anay Joshi i/b. Ms. Saili Dhuru, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

API Shirke, Vartaknagar Police Station.

¶12

Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent/State.

¶13

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 6^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

This Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiaya

¶16

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Applicants against the FIR bearing No. 0106 of 2023 registered with Vartak Nagar Police

¶17

Station, Thane for offences punishable under Section 498(A), 406, 323,

¶18

504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the charge-

¶19

sheet registered as C.C. No. RCC/3850/2023 pending on the file of 4^th Jt.

Talwalkar

913.APL17.2026.doc

Civil Judge, J.D. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thane, arising out of the said FIR.

¶24

Applicant No. 1 is present in person. Applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are appearing through V.C. Mr. Rahul Hande, Advocate for the Applicants identifies the Applicants and tenders their photo identity cards (7 nos.), same are taken on record and collectively marked as “ X colly. ” for identification.

¶25

Respondent No. 2 is present in the court with her Advocate Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare. He tenders photo identity card of Respondent No. 2, same is taken on record and marked “ X-1 ” for identification.

¶26

Mr. Rahul Hande and Mr. Digvijay Kachare state that matrimonial dispute between the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 is resolved and the Respondent No. 2 alongwith Applicants are residing happily together in the matrimonial house. They submit that out the said wedlock, the Applicant No. 1 (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (wife) are blessed with a child. In view of the resolution of the dispute, they submit that the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Talwalkar

913.APL17.2026.doc

Mr. Digvijay S. Kachare tenders affidavit dated 3^rd

¶31

February, 2026 affirmed by Respondent No. 2 before Notary Shane Cardoz, same is taken on record and marked as “ X-2 ” for identification. Respondent No. 2 states that the affidavit (“X-2”) is filed by her out of her free will and without any pressure from any person. She states that the contents of the affidavit (“X-2”) are as per her say. She reiterates her statements and states that she has no objection for quashing of the proceedings.

¶32

Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the State submits that in

¶33

view of the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in the affidavit (“X-2”) of having amicably resolved the matter with the Applicants, criminal proceedings which are subject matter of this petition can be quashed.

¶34

Considering the afore referred circumstances, the nature of dispute which is amicable resolved between parties, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her Affidavit ("X-2") and having regards to the judicial pronouncements in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh² ,

¶35

1(2012) 10 SCC 303

¶36

2 2025 SCC Online SC 466

Talwalkar

913.APL17.2026.doc

Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.³ and Sandeep Singh Thakur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.⁴ , there is no impediment if this Petition is allowed.

¶41

This Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). Consequently, the FIR No. 0106 of 2023 registered with Vartak Nagar Police Station and the Charge Sheet bearing No, RCC/3850/2023 pending before the 4^th Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thane are quashed.

¶42