Allowed¶50

Salman Salim Khan @ Salman Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2026APL/179/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application allowed; FIR No. 809 of 2025, Malad Police Station, Mumbai (Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2), 85 BNS 2023) quashed upon settlement of matrimonial dispute and complainant-wife's voluntary no-objection affidavit; relied on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; conditional costs of Rs. 50,000 deposited with High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund; Bombay High Court, Criminal Application No. 179 of 2026, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 809 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station, granted in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- by the Applicants and Respondent No. 2. ¶50

Salman Salim Khan @ Salman Khan and Ors. vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 809 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station, granted in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- by the Applicants and Respondent No. 2.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 809 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station (offences under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2) and 85 of BNS 2023) and the resulting criminal proceedings ought to be quashed, in view of the settlement of the matrimonial dispute between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2's sworn no-objection.

¶22

Court's answer

Having regard to the circumstances, the nature of the dispute, Respondent No. 2's statements in affidavit (X-2), and the Supreme Court decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court found there is no impediment for allowing this Application.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- by the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶42

Key takeaways

Consequently, FIR No. 809 of 2025 registered with Malad Police Station is quashed.ratio¶50
The Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the cost of Rs. 50,000/- in the account stated in the order (the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai) within four weeks from today, and file an affidavit of compliance with proof of deposit in the Registry of this Court on or before 9 March 2026.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Criminal Application No. 179 of 2026 under Section 528, BNSS (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; order dated 5 February 2026). Applicants, led by Salman Salim Khan @ Salman Khan, sought quashing of FIR No. 809 of 2025 dated 18 November 2025, registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2) and 85 of BNS 2023, arising out of a matrimonial dispute. Applicant No. 1 (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (wife) informed the Court that they had resolved the dispute and decided to part ways. Respondent No. 2 tendered an affidavit dated 23 January 2026 (marked X-2), stating it was filed of her own free will and without pressure or coercion, and reiterated her no objection to quashing; the learned APP supported quashing subject to costs. Having regard to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court found no impediment and, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- costs by the Applicants and Respondent No. 2, allowed the application in terms of prayer clause (b), quashing FIR No. 809 of 2025. The costs are to be deposited in the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund account at Mumbai (Bank of India) within four weeks, with affidavit of compliance and proof of deposit on or before 9 March 2026. Order corrected/modified as per speaking-to-minutes order dated 26 February 2026.

¶1

5-APL-179-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 179 OF 2026

¶4

Salman Salim Khan @ Salman Khan And Ors. … Applicants

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Niraj Tripathi a/w Mr. Ravish Furqan Zamindar, Advocate for Applicants.

¶8

Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶10

Mr. Moh Rafik Gavandi – PSI, Malad Police Station, Mumbai.

¶11

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 5^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard Mr. Niraj Tripathi, learned Advocate for the

¶14

Applicants, Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent

¶15

No. 2 and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

¶16

By the present Application filed under Section 528 of

¶17

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), the Applicants has

¶18

This order is corrected / modified as per speaking to the minutes order dated 26^th February, 2026.

Gayatri shimpi

5-APL-179-2026.doc

sought for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 809 of 2025 dated 18^th November, 2025 registered with Malad Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2), 85 of the BNS 2023.

¶23

Applicant No. 1, Applicant Nos. 2 and 5 are present in the Court along with their Advocate Mr. Niraj Tripathi. Applicant Nos. 3 & 4 are present through V. C. and are identified by Advocate Mr. Niraj Tripathi. Photostat copy of the Applicant’s Aadhar Card (5 in numbers) are taken on record and marked as ‘X-colly’ for identification.

¶24

Respondent No. 2 is present in Court along with her Advocate Mr. Shekhar Singh.

¶25

Mr. Niraj Tripathi and Mr. Shekhar Singh submit that the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 have resolved the matrimonial dispute. Applicant No. 1 (Husband ) and Respondent No. 2 (wife) have decided to part ways. They therefore submit that the criminal proceedings filed by Respondent No. 2 against the

¶26

This order is corrected / modified as per speaking to the minutes order dated 26^th February, 2026.

Gayatri shimpi

5-APL-179-2026.doc

Applicants may not be quashed.

¶31

Mr. Shekhar Singh tenders the affidavit dated 23^rd January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before Notary Mr. Jawaharlal K. Tiwari along with photostat copy of her identity card, same are taken on record and marked ‘X-1’ and ‘X-2’, respectively for identification.

¶32

Respondent No. 2 states that the affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She reiterates her no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶33

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State, submits that the Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, now having decided to separate, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. She submits that the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings may be quashed, based on the affidavit (X-2) and the statements today made before this Court by the Advocates representing Applicants and the

¶34

This order is corrected / modified as per speaking to the minutes order dated 26^th February, 2026.

Gayatri shimpi

5-APL-179-2026.doc

Respondent No.2. She however insists for imposition of costs on the parties.

¶39

Mr. Niraj Tripathi and Mr. Shekhar Singh on instructions from the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 submit they shall pay appropriate costs.

¶40

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of

¶41

dispute, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit (X-2) and having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab¹ , Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Anr² , Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr³ there is no impediment for allowing this Application.

¶42

Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- by the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2, this Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Consequently, the FIR bearing No.

¶43