Allowed

Suhas S/O Satishrao Katkamwar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ramtek Dist Nagpur Rural and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026APL/350/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement; Sections 75(1)(i) and 79 BNS; obscene message dated 29.11.2025; Crime No.25/2026, PS Ramtek, District Nagpur Rural; joint affidavit of settlement confirmed by court; offence not heinous; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2002) 10 SCC 303 applied; inherent power of High Court; Criminal Application APL No.350/2026; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Urmila Joshi-P

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.25/2026 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 75(1)(i) and 79 of the BNS quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Suhas s/o Satishrao Ka

Suhas S/O Satishrao Katkamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ramtek Dist Nagpur Rural and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

18 apl350.26

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.350/2026 Suhas s/o Satishrao Katkamwar

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Mah., thr.PSO PS Ramtek, District Nagpur Rural and anr

¶7

............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri R.R.Raut, Counsel for the Applicant. Mrs.R.V.Sharma, APP for the State. Shri A.V.Agnihotri, Counsel for NA No.2.

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE : 18/03/2026

¶10

By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.25/2026 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 75(1)(i) and 79 of the BNS.

¶11

The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegation that she is running her “Beauty Parlour” at her house. On 29.11.2025, she has received an obscene message from the applicant. Therefore, she approached the police station and lodged the report.

¶12

Thereafter, the parties have amicably settled the said issue between them and settlement terms by way of joint affidavit is placed on record.

¶13

Settlement terms are confirmed and verified from the parties. The complainant has agreed and accepted the same.

.....2/-

18 apl350.26

The applicant is also present before this court. He has also agreed and accepted the settlement terms.

¶18

In view of the settlement and nature of offence is not heinous, the present application can be allowed by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 303 wherein it is observed that, “where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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.

¶19

In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of the matrimony particularly relating to dowry etc. or family dispute where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and 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 framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the

.....3/-

18 apl350.26

criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

¶24

In this view of the matter, the application is allowed as per order below:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(1) The criminal application is allowed .

¶27

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.25/2026 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 75(1)(i) and 79 of the BNS is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Suhas s/o Satishrao Katkamwar.

¶28

Application stands disposed of .

¶29

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

¶30

!! BrWankhede !!

¶31

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 30/03/2026 18:32:12

¶32

...../-

Suhas S/O Satishrao Katkamwar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ramtek Dist Nagpur Rural and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas S/O Satishrao Katkamwar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ramtek Dist Nagpur Rural and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases