Nirav Upendra Siddhapura and Anr. vs Khushi Aashish Turakhia and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nirav Upendra Siddhapura and Anr. vs Khushi Aashish Turakhia and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Application No. 590 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): FIR bearing No. 316 of 2025 registered at Juhu Police Station and the chargesheet (No. PW/3018/2025) arising out of it are quashed; no orders as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of C.R./FIR No. 316 of 2025 registered at Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, and the chargesheet arising therefrom, should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the amicable settlement between the Applicants and Respondent No. 1.

Court's answer

Considering the circumstances, the nature of the dispute, that the Applicants and Respondent No. 1 are college students with careers before them, their resolution of the dispute, and having regard to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the court deemed it fit and proper to exercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the criminal proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

Criminal Application No. 590 of 2025 was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); consequently, FIR bearing No. 316 of 2025 and the chargesheet arising out of the said FIR stand quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Settlement between parties — Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing FIR No. 316 of 2025 (Juhu Police Station, Mumbai) registered against the Applicants for offences punishable under Sections 74, 118(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with chargesheet No. PW/3018/2025 filed during pendency. The Applicants and Respondent No. 1, college students, reconciled and amicably settled a petty dispute and jointly sought quashing; Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit (marked 'X'), affirmed before a Notary on 4 April 2025, confirming it was made of her own free will and without pressure, and the learned APP raised no objection. Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and considering the nature of the dispute and that the parties were students with careers before them, the Court exercised its powers under Section 528 BNSS: the Criminal Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), quashing FIR No. 316 of 2025 and the chargesheet arising therefrom. No orders as to costs. (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; decided 27 January 2026.)

40.APL.590.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2025

Nirav Upendra Siddhapura And Anr. …Applicants Versus Khushi Aashish Turakhia And Anr. …Respondents

Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav, for the Applicant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Rahul Walvekar, for the Respondent No. 2. PSI Shekhar Pawar, Juhu Police Station, is present.

CORAM: ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED: 27^th JANUARY, 2026.

PC:-

At the outset, Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav, learned Advocate for the

Applicants submits that during the pendency of this Application, chargesheet was filed. He craves leave to amend the cause title to add the details of the charge sheet in the prayer clause, leave granted. Ammendmend to be carried out forthwith.

This Application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 filed by the Applicants is preferred against the FIR bearing No. 316 of 2025 registered at the Juhu Police Station, Mumbai

Arjun

Page 1 of 4

40.APL.590.2025

against the Applicants for offences punishable under Sections 74, 118(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190 and 191(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the chargesheet bearing No. PW/3018/2025.

Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Rahul Walvekar learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, jointly submit that the dispute between the Applicants and the Respondent No. 1 was out of a petty issue. They submit that the Applicants as well as the Respondent No. 1 are college students who have now reconciled their differences and amicably settled the dispute. They therefore submit that the criminal proceedings arising out of the C. R. 316 of 2025 be quahsed.

Applicants are present in court along with their Advocate Mr. Sangramsinh Yadav. Respondent No. 1 is present in Court along with her Advocate Mr. Rahul Walvekar. Applicants and the Respondent No. 1, state that they have resolved their dispute .

Mr. Rahul Walvekar tenders affidavit in reply of the Respondent

No. 1 affirmed by her before Notary Mithilesh Kumar Dubey, on 4^th

Arjun

Page 2 of 4

40.APL.590.2025

April, 2025 along with photostat copy of her identity, same are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Respondent No. 1 ( Khushi Aashish Turakhia) states that the Affidavit (X) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure from any person. She states that the contents of her Affidavit (X) are as per her say reiterates.

Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP submits that the Applicants having resolved the disptue with the Respondent No.1 and in veiw of the statements made by the Respondent No. 1 in her Affidavit (X), the impugned FIR can be quashed.

Considering the above said circumstances, the nature of dispute, the Applicants as well as the Respondent No. 1 being college students and having a career before them and having regards to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.¹ , I deem it fit and proper to exercise powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the criminal proceedings .

1 (2017) 9 SCC 641.

Arjun

Page 3 of 4

40.APL.590.2025

Criminal Application No. 590 of 2025 is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (a). Consequently, the FIR bearing No. 316 of 2025 and the chargesheet arising out of the said FIR are quashed.

No orders as to costs.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Arjun

Page 4 of 4