Allowed

Divyansh Mukesh Deopura v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/5618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of FIR No. 364 of 2025 under Section 69 of BNS and the charge-sheet arising from it. The parties settled the matrimonial dispute amicably; the complainant filed a consent affidavit. Relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 364/2025 of Mira Road Police Station and charge-sheet arising therefrom quashed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d); no order as to costs.

Divyansh Mukesh Deopura vs State of Maharashtra and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed VAISHALI by VAISHALI ANIL ANIL TIKAMDate: TIKAM 2026.01.22 21:31:24 +0530

¶2

46- WP 5618 of 2025- 20-01-2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5618 OF 2025

¶5

Divyasnsh Mukesh Deopura ...Petitioner Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Harshada Parbhare a/w. Mr. Prashant Patil Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh a/w. Mr. Aarti Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

¶9

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 20^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard Mr. Prasanna Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He submits that pending the proceedings, the prosecution has filed charge-sheet. He craves leave to amend the prayer clause/s of Petition to seek reliefs in respect of the chargesheet. Request is not objected by Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. In view of the No Objection, leave is granted to amend the prayer clauses of Petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

¶14

Tikam

¶15

46- WP 5618 of 2025- 20-01-2026.doc

¶16

By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs :

¶17

"a. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise it's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash and set aside FIR no. 364 of 2025 registered with the Mira Road Police Station for offence under section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and without any role attributable to the present Petitioner. d. That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside subsequent proceedings arising out FIR No. 364/25 including Charge-sheet filed before the Hon’ble Trial Court, Thane;”

¶18

Petitioner is present along with his Advocate Mr. Prasanna Patil. Respondent No.2 is present along with her Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh. Mr. Prasanna Patil and Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh jointly submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved the matrimonial dispute, as such they are praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings by consent.

¶19

Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh tenders the Affidavit dated 10/11/2025 of Respondent No.2 affirmed before Avadesh Kumar. Said Affidavit dated 10/11/2025 is taken on record and marked

¶20

¶21

Tikam

¶22

46- WP 5618 of 2025- 20-01-2026.doc

¶23

"X" for identification. Respondent No.2 (Shayantani Das) states that she has filed the Affidavit ("X") out of her own free will and without any force or coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the Affidavit ("X") as per her say. She states that the matter being amicably settled, between her and the Petitioner, she has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶24

Ms. P. Dabholkar, learned APP for the State, submits that as Respondent No.2 has filed the Affidavit ("X"), no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings. She submits that the criminal proceedings which are subject of this Petition can be quashed.

¶25

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 and Narinder Singh & ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh² there is no impediment if this Petition is allowed. I therefore deem it fit and

¶26

1(2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶27

22025 Scc Online Sc 466

¶28

¶29

Tikam

¶30

46- WP 5618 of 2025- 20-01-2026.doc

¶31

proper to exercise the power under Section 528 of BNSS and quash the criminal proceedings.

¶32

Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d). Consequently, the FIR No. 364 of 2025 registered with Mira Road Police Station and the Charge Sheet arising from the said FIR are quashed.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶35

¶36

Tikam

Divyansh Mukesh Deopura v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyansh Mukesh Deopura v. 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

Uday Govind Prajapati and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Sanad Raman Naik and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanad Raman Naik and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhananjay Upadhyay vs the State of Maharashtra

Shamsuddoha Ansari and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mithila Rajanikant Gandhi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.