Allowed¶27

Gaurang Mohanlal Soni and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026WP/4669/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute; no-objection affidavit by Respondent No.2 (X-2, dated 10 January 2026); judicial separation decree of Family Court, Bandra; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Sections 498A, 504, 323, 406 r/w Section 34 IPC; FIR No.283 of 2025, Vakola Police Station, Mumbai; reliance on Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; Criminal Writ Petition No. 4669 of 2025; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; decision dated 10 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, in terms of prayer clause (a). ¶27

Gaurang Mohanlal Soni and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR bearing No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 406 r/w Section 34 IPC against the Petitioners should be quashed, in view of the amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute and Respondent No.2's no objection.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the settlement between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2's no objection in her Affidavit (X-2), and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab, Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr, and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat, there is no impediment in allowing the Application.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Criminal Writ Petition No.4669 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); consequently, the impugned FIR bearing No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai is quashed.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No. 4669 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., 10 February 2026): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash FIR No. 283 of 2025 of Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 406 r/w Section 34 IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 had separated pursuant to a decree of the Family Court, Bandra; the dispute was stated to be amicably resolved, and Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit dated 10 January 2026 (marked X-2), affirmed before Notary Advocate S N Dhange, giving her voluntary no objection to quashing. Having regard to the Supreme Court pronouncements in Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab (2012 10 SCC 303), Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr (2014 6 SCC 466) and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat (2017 9 SCC 641), the Court held there was no impediment in allowing the petition, allowed it in terms of prayer clause (a) and quashed the FIR.

¶1

(76) WP-4669.25.DOCX

¶2

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2026.02.12 11:10:09 +0530

¶3

lgc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4669 OF 2025

¶6

Gaurang Mohanlal Soni and ors. : Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. ______________________________________________________

¶7

Ms Deepa Panicker, for the Petitioners. Ms. Pallavi N Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Yashwardhan Tiwari, for the Respondent No,.2.

¶8

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 10 FEBRUARY 2026

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Heard Ms. Deepa Panicker, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Yashwardhan Tiwari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 406 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

¶13

(76) WP-4669.25.DOCX

¶14

Petitioner No.1 (Husband) is present in Court along with learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Panicker. She tenders the Photostat copy of the Identity Card of the Petitioner No.1, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. She however states that Petitioner No.2 is a senior citizen whereas Petitioner No.3 is sister in law, who resides in Rajasthan. Advocate Ms. Deepa Panicker submits that the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have personal difficulties in appearing before this Court and therefore she seeks exemption. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP, submits that for the reasons mentioned by Advocate Ms. Deepa Panicker exemption as prayed can be granted.

¶15

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by her Advocate Mr.Yashwardhan Tiwari. He tenders Photostat copy of the Identity Card of Respondent No.2, which is taken on record and marked as “X-1 ” for identification.

¶16

Advocate Ms. Deepa Panicker and Advocate Mr. Yashwardhan Tiwari submit that the matrimonial dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 is amicably resolved. They submit that Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 are separated by way of judicial separation pursuant to the decree passed by the Family Court, Bandra. They submit that Respondent No.2 has given no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners.

¶17

¶18

(76) WP-4669.25.DOCX

¶19

Mr. Yashwardhan Tiwari states that the Affidavit dated 10 January 2026 affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary Advocate S N Dhange is placed on record, same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

¶20

Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She reiterates her no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶21

Ms Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP submits that the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 having settled the matter and the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 being judicially separated pursuant to the divorce by mutual consent passed by the Family Court, Bandra, the Respondent No.2 having filed her Affidavit (X-2) given no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. She however insists for imposition of costs.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of dispute, the matter being settled between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 having given her no objection in the Affidavit (X-2) and having regards to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh And Ors vs

¶23

1 2012 10 SCC 303

¶24

¶25

(76) WP-4669.25.DOCX

¶26

State Of Punjab And Anr² and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat³ , there is no impediment in allowing this Application.

¶27

In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition No.4669 of 2025, is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the impugned FIR bearing No.283 of 2025 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai is quashed.

¶28

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶29

3 2017 9 SCC 641

¶30

2 2014 6 SCC 466

¶31

Gaurang Mohanlal Soni and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurang Mohanlal Soni and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gurpreet Malhi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gurpreet Malhi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Pamecha vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Bhagwan Mahajan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Farman Vikram Chauhan vs the State of Maharashtra

Farman Vikram Chauhan vs the State of Maharashtra