Vaibhav S/O Sunil Adetwar and Others. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer and Anr.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5082

¶2

13 apl 593.26.odt..odt

¶3

1

¶4

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

¶5

	CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 593 OF 2026
1.	Vaibhav S/o Sunil Adetwar
	(Husband of N.A.2) Aged about 32 yrs, Occ- Private, APPLICANTS
2.	Sunil S/o Gajanan Adetwar (Father- in-law of N.A.2) Aged about 60 years, Occ- Service,
3.	Kavita W/o Sunil Adetwar (Mother- in-law of N.A.2) Aged about 53 years, Occ- Housewife,
	All R/o Shubharambh Nivas, Plot No.21, Tirthrup Nagar, Beside Yash Residency, // V E R S U S //
1.	State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Beltarodi, Nagpur City, District Nagpur. NON-APPLICANTS
2. -----	Sau. Asawari W/o Vaibhav Adetwar Aged 32 years, Occ.: Physiotherapist, R/o. C/o Ranitin Ramesh Shende, Flat No. 101, Ward No.2, D-Mart, Sai Apartment, Beltarodi, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mrs Mr. ----	A.S. Ambatkar, Advocate for the applicants. . Mrunal Barbade, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State. K.R. Kaningo, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

13 apl 593.26.odt..odt

¶7

2

¶8

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

¶9

DATED : 23.03.2026

¶10

O R A L J U D G M E N T :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

ADMIT . Taken up for final disposal with the consent

¶13

of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime No.538/2023 registered at Police Station Beltarodi District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.5531/2025 pending on the file of 11^th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.

¶15

During pendency of this application both parties arrived at settlement and as per settlement terms applicant No.1

¶16

3

¶17

13 apl 593.26.odt..odt

¶18

and non-applicant No.2 decided to reside together. The settlement terms are filed on record. I have personally verified from applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 as to the contents of the settlement and they agreed and accepted the same. Non-applicant No.2 has also filed affidavit in reply.

¶19

As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab 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

¶20

13 apl 593.26.odt..odt

¶21

4

¶22

the 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. In view of the aforesaid application deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.

¶26

(ii) The First Information Report in connection with

¶27

crime No.538/2023 registered at Police Station Beltarodi District Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing RCC No.5531/2025 pending on the file of 11^th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur is quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicants.

¶28

13 apl 593.26.odt..odt

¶29

5

¶30

The criminal application stands disposed of in

¶31

the above said terms.

¶32

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶34

manisha

¶35

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/04/2026 15:48:12

Vaibhav S/O Sunil Adetwar and Others. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav S/O Sunil Adetwar and Others. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Police Station Officer 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

Similar cases

Manoj S/O Jeevatram Chhabada vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Sadar Nagpur

Darshan S/O Prabhakar Bavane. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Sonegaon Nagpur and Anr.

Dr. Sau. Nanda Rajendra Vaidya vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Ballarpur Tah.Ballarpur Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Safiq Khan Rafiq Khan vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Wathoda

Amit Dattatraya Bandawar vs Mrunali W/O Amit Bandawar

Vaishali Sanjay Bais vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Washim Gramin Dist Washim