Rohit Ramlubaya Diwedi@ Rohit Diwedi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

This Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Applicant for quashing the FIR bearing No. 0363 of 2025, dated 18.08.2025, (impugned FIR)

¶15

Arjun

¶16

1

¶17

2-APL-337-2026.odt

¶18

registered with Kashimira Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 85, 3(5), 115(2), 316, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

Applicants are present in the Court and are identified by their Advocate Mr. Inder Kohli. He tenders the Photostat copies of the Identity Cards of (3 nos.) Applicants, which are taken on record and marked as “X-Colly” for identification.

¶20

Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and is identified by her Advocate Ms. Priti Trivedi. She tenders the Photostat copy of Identity Card of Respondent No. 2 which is taken on record and marked as “X-1 ” for identification.

¶21

Ms. Priti Trivedi, states that the Affidavit dated 16^th January, 2026, affirmed by Respondent No. 2 before the Notary Priti Amit Trivedi, is placed on record. Same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

¶22

Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed

¶23

out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from

Arjun

2

2-APL-337-2026.odt

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.

¶28

Mr. Inder Kohli, and Ms. Priti Trivedi, submit that the matrimonial dispute between the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 is amicably resolved. They submit that the Applicant No. 1 (Husband) and the Respondent No. 2 (Wife) have decided to part ways and they have also exercised their right to seek judicial separation before the Family Court having jurisdiction. They submit that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR.

¶29

Ms. Shilpa Talhar, learned APP for the State, submits that in view of the settlement between the parties pertaining to their matrimonial dispute and the statements made by Respondent No. 2, in Affidavit (X-2), she has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings. She submits that the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2 have resorted to settling a matrimonial dispute

¶30

by use of police machinery, therefore, she insists for imposition of

Arjun 3

2-APL-337-2026.odt

cost.

Mr. Inder Kohli and Ms. Priti Trivedi, on instructions from

¶35

the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2, present in Court submit that they shall deposit appropriate cost.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of dispute arising from a matrimonial disharmony, the matter being settled between the Applicants and the Respondent No. 2 and the statement of Respondent No. 2 in her Affidavit (X-2), no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. Having regards to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr² and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat³ there is no impediment in allowing this Application.

¶37