Swapnil Dilip Manvar and Others. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps M.I.D.C. Nagpur and Anr.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3365

¶2

1 24 APL 302.2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.302 OF 2026

¶5

1.	Swapnil Dilip Manvar, Age about 36 years, Occ : Driver.
2.	Smt. Nilam Swapnil Manvar, Aged about 33 years, Occ : Household.
3.	Vipul Rajendra More, Aged about 26 years, Occ : Service.
4.	Praful Rajendra More, Aged about 24 years, Occ : Service.
5.	Megha Rajendra More, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Household.
	All R/o. Rai Town II, Isasani, Higna Road, Nagpur. ..	Applicants
	..Versus ..
1.	State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, M.I.D.C. Nagpur.
2.	Aman s/o Mohanlal Thantharate, Aged about 36 years, Occ : Service, R/o. C-11, Rai Town-2, Isasani, MIDC,
	Nagpur. ..	Respondents

¶6

2 24 APL 302.2026

¶7

Shri A.S. Shukla, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. D.I. Charlewar, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 through Video Conference.

¶8

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 26.02.2026.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash and set aside the Final Report No.196/2021 dated 18.11.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 427, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also seeks to

¶11

quash R.C.C. No.3/2022 registered in consequence of filing of the chargesheet.

¶12

It is pointed out by the parties that during the pendency of the present application the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have executed memorandum of understanding dated 13.2.2026. The said memorandum of understanding is duly signed by the applicants as well as nonapplicant no.2.

¶13

Today before this court the applicant nos.1, 2 and 5 are present in person and applicant nos.3 and 4 through video

¶14

3 24 APL 302.2026

¶15

conference. Non-applicant no.2 is also present through video conference. On the court query to all these parties, they have confirmed the fact that there is amicable settlement and accordingly memorandum of understanding was issued by them which is duly signed by all the parties.

¶16

In the light of this, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may within the

¶17

4 24 APL 302.2026

¶18

framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 5. In the present case, the dispute is between the family members, there is no impediment to accept their settlement and accordingly to quash the criminal proceeding registered against

¶19

applicants. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :

¶20

(1) The application is allowed. (2) The proceeding of R.C.C. No.3/2022 pending

¶21

before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingna, for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 427, 143, 147, 148

¶22

and 149 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No.588/2021 dated 30.08.2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶23

(3) No order as to costs.

¶24

(Pravin S. Patil, J.)

¶25

Gulande

¶26

Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 26/02/2026 16:47:06

Swapnil Dilip Manvar and Others. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps M.I.D.C. Nagpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Dilip Manvar and Others. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps M.I.D.C. Nagpur 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

Yogesh Tejrao Nagare vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Balapur Tq Akola and Another

State of Mah Thru Collector, Nagpur and 2 Ors. vs Deorao Atmaram Fiske and Anor.

Swapnil S/O Dnyaneshwar Jawarkar vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Shirajgaon Tq.Achalpur Dist.Amravati and Another

Nikhl M Tarkunde vs State of Maharashtra through Police Officer Sadar Police Station

Akshay Sukhaderao Gawai vs the State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer

Mrs. Shraddha Nandakishor Wankhade vs Mr. Nandkishor Samadhan Wankhade