Paramjit Singh Tarlochan Singh Kalsi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Paramjit Singh Tarlochan Singh Kalsi vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; leave to withdraw granted with liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if entitled in law, to challenge the impugned FIR / charge-sheet on merits; no quashing ordered and no observation on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in C. R. No. 175 of 2025 (Sakinaka Road Police Station) for offences under Sections 64(1), 308, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S, 2023, together with the resulting proceedings/charge-sheet, should be quashed on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement and Respondent No. 2 (the prosecutrix) consented to quashing.

Court's answer

Leave granted to the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if entitled in law, to challenge the impugned FIR / charge-sheet on merits.

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that it has not examined the merits of the case; dismissal of the petition does not prevent the merits from being assessed in appropriate proceedings, and all contentions of the parties are left open.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. — Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2025, decided 24 March 2026. The accused (Paramjit Singh Tarlochan Singh Kalsi) sought quashing of FIR C. R. No. 175 of 2025 lodged with Sakinaka Road Police Station for offences under Sections 64(1), 308, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S, 2023, along with the charge-sheet, on the strength of a settlement with Respondent No. 2 (the prosecutrix). The learned APP for the State, referring to a record document of the purported settlement, objected that the request did not merit leniency. Counsel for the Petitioner thereupon sought leave to withdraw, with liberty to mount a fresh, merits-based challenge to the FIR/charge-sheet. The Court granted leave to withdraw with that liberty, expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits and that dismissal would not preclude assessment of the merits in appropriate proceedings, and left all contentions open. Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn. No precedent cited; no view taken on the propriety of consensual quashing.

904-WP-2727-2025.doc

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2026.03.25 17:18:03 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2727 OF 2025

Paramjit Singh Tarlochan Singh Kalsi … Petitioner

Versus.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Ms. Noorseema Baig, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Moorrthy Acharya, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Sopan Wadkar – PSI, Sakinaka Police Station.

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 24^th MARCH, 2026

P.C. :

By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought for

the following substantive reliefs in prayer clause (b) :-

“b) To issue appropriate Writ, Order and/or Directions to QUASH the FIR in C. R. No. 175 of 2025 lodged with Sakinaka Road Police station, for the offence punishable Under Sections 64(1), 308, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S, 2023 308, 351, of B.N.S.;”

This petition has been circulated in view of the

praecipe dated 13^th March, 2026, on the ground mentioned therein.

1

Gayatri shimpi

904-WP-2727-2025.doc

Ms Noorseema Baig, learned Advocate for the

Petitioner and Mr. Moorrthy Acharya, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submit that the parties have entered into a settlement and therefore they seek quashing of the impugned FIR / charge-sheet by consent.

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, the learned APP for the State, referring to a record document indicating the purported settlement, strongly objects to the request to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably resolved the matter. She argues that, given the nature of the alleged offence

and the purported settlement between the parties, the request made by Ms. Noorseema Baig and Mr. Moorrthy Acharya does not merit any leniency and therefore seeks dismissal.

In light of the objection raised by Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP, Ms. Noorseema Baig, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this petition, which she states was filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the grounds of consent given by Respondent No. 2 (the prosecutrix) to quash the criminal

2

Gayatri shimpi

904-WP-2727-2025.doc

proceedings based on the settlement referred to in the document placed on record. She also seeks leave to file an appropriate proceeding to challenge the impugned FIR/charge-sheet on the merits.

Ms Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP, submits that if the Petitioner files appropriate proceedings available under law, such proceedings should be considered after hearing the prosecution. She, however, reiterates her objection to entertaining the present petition in the form and with the documents as filed on record.

In view of the statement made by Ms. Noorseema Baig, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, leave to withdraw the present Petition is granted, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings if entitled in law, to challenge the impugned FIR / charge-sheet on merits.

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case, and dismissing this petition does not prevent the merits from being assessed in appropriate proceedings. All contentions of the parties are left open.

3

Gayatri shimpi

904-WP-2727-2025.doc

Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2025 is dismissed as

withdrawn.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

4

Gayatri shimpi