Allowed

Vishesh Balbir Verma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

CRIMINAL LAW – QUASHING OF FIR AND CHARGE-SHEET – MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE

Bombay HC23 Jan 2026WP/24/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., 23-01-2026), Criminal Writ Petition No. 24 of 2026: FIR No. 254/2018, Meghwadi Police Station (ss. 498A, 406, 313, 379 r/w. 34 IPC) and charge-sheet (Sessions Case No. 641/2019) quashed under Section 528 BNSS read with Article 226 on amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute before Family Court, Bandra; wife's affidavit of free-will consent marked 'X'; reli

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 254 of 2018 and of the charge-sheet pending before the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 641 of 2019; criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR closed; no order as to costs; Wr

Vishesh Balbir Verma and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.02.13 18:08:33 +0530 919.WP24.2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2026

¶5

Vishesh Balbir Verma & Anr. … Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. ---

¶6

Ms. Yogini Abhay Ugale, a/w. Mr. Abhijeet Mahadeokar and Preeti Madan, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶7

Ms. Pooja P. Yadav, a/w. Ms. Jyoti Vishwakarma, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for Respondent/State. PSI Ghodage,(Pairavi) Meghwadi Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 23^rd JANUARY, 2026.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶12

India and under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

¶13

Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) is preferred against the FIR

¶14

bearing No. 254 of 2018 registered with Meghwadi Police Station

¶15

for offence punishable under section 498A, 406, 313, 379 r/w. 34

¶16

This order is corrected as per the Speaking to the minutes of the order dated 10^th February, 2026.

Talwalkar

919.WP24.2026.doc

of the Indian Penal Code and the Charge-sheet pending before the Sessions Court which is registered as Sessions Case No. 641 of 2019.

¶21

Ms. Yogini Ugale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that both the Petitioners are present in the court. Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 states that the Respondent No. 2 is present in the court. They submit that matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner No. 1 (husband) and the Respondent No. 2 (wife) is amicably resolved before the Family Court at Bandra and therefore, the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of the present criminal proceedings.

¶22

Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 tenders affidavit dated 20^th January, 2026 affirmed by Respondent No. 2 before Notary M.M. Pabale, Mumbai. Said Affidavit dated 20^th January, 2026 and consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶23

Respondent No. 2 (Vipasha Agarwal) states that the affidavit (“X”) is filed out of her own free will and without any

¶24

This order is corrected as per the Speaking to the minutes of the order dated 10^th February, 2026.

Talwalkar

919.WP24.2026.doc

pressure from any person. She states that the contents of the affidavit is as per her say and she by relying on paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 of the affidavit (“X”) submits that she has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Petitioners who are present in court submit that the matrimonial discord between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 is settled. Photo identity card tendered by Advocate Ms. Ugale are marked as “X-1” for identification.

¶29

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State submits that no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceeding in view of the statement made by the Respondent No. 2 in her affidavit (“X”) as also statement made before this Court, today.

¶30

Considering the amicable settlement between parties, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in her Affidavit ("X"), the nature of dispute and having regards to the judicial pronouncements in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh² and Parbatbhai

¶31

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶32

2 2025 SCC Online SC 466

¶33

This order is corrected as per the Speaking to the minutes of the order dated 10^th February, 2026.

Talwalkar

919.WP24.2026.doc

Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.³ , there is no impediment if this Petition is allowed. I therefore deem it fit and proper to exercise the power under Section 528 of BNSS and quash the criminal proceedings.

¶38

Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, FIR bearing No.254 of 2018 and Charge-sheet pending before the Sessions Court which is registered as Sessions Case No. 641 of 2019 are quashed. The Criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are closed. No order as to costs.

¶39

Writ Petition No. 24 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶40

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶41

3(2017) 9 SCC 641

¶42

This order is corrected as per the Speaking to the minutes of the order dated 10^th February, 2026.

¶43

¶44

Talwalkar

Vishesh Balbir Verma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishesh Balbir Verma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Anton Nazarov Thr His Natural Guardian and Next Friend Petitioner NO.2 and 2 Ors. vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and 7 Ors.

George Mathen vs State of Maharashtra

Manoj Pralhad Ingole vs the State of Maharashtra

Narayanbhai Rambhai Ghadiya and Anr. vs Dr Suresh Kanthilal Jani and Anr.

Kamlesh Ratilal Ostwal and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

George Mathen vs State of Maharashtra