2025:BHC-AS:54354-DB

Digitally signed by

RUSHIKESH

RUSHIKESHVISHNU VISHNU PATIL PATIL Date:

2025.12.11 10:52:08 +0530

1

904 WP.4946.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4946 OF 2021

Shakila Qudrat Ali Sheikh & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

******

Adv. Shubi Q. Z. Sayed, for the Petitioners.

Mr. R. A. Shaikh a/w Adv. Mariyah Khatkhatay and Mr. Hasan Sayed,

for Respondent No. 2.

Ms Sangita Phad, APP, for the Respondent-State.

******

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 10^th DECEMBER 2025

P.C. :

. The learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the disputes between the parties are settled and consent terms have been executed. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 have signed the consent terms that are tendered across the bar. The husband of respondent No. 2, who is also an accused in the subject FIR has signed the consent terms as confirming party. Copy of the order dated 7^th August 2024 passed by this Court (Coram: Gauri Godse, J.) in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 22369 of 2023, is annexed to the consent terms along with copy of the consent terms that were

placed before this Court in the said writ petition.

2. The respondent No. 2 is personally present in Court and she confirms the fact that her husband, i.e. accused No. 1 in the subject

FIR is abiding by the terms of settlement between the parties, and on that basis, she orally confirms the contents of the consent terms and submits that she is giving her voluntary consent for quashing of the subject FIR.

3. We find that, for some reason the accused No. 1, i.e. the husband of respondent No. 2 was not made a petitioner in this writ petition. Considering the fact that the parties have entered into comprehensive settlement, it would be in the interest of justice that the husband of respondent No. 2 is permitted to be added as petitioner No. 4 in this writ petition. Accordingly, leave is granted to add him as petitioner No. 4. The amendment be carried out forthwith.

Reverification is dispensed with.

4. We are further informed that the said husband of the respondent No. 2 did not file any separate petition for quashing of the subject FIR. We find that the dispute in the present case essentially arose out of matrimonial discord between the newly added petitioner No. 4 and the respondent No. 2. In that backdrop, various proceedings were initiated, including filing of the subject FIR and also proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Since a comprehensive settlement has been reached, we find that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the prayer in the present petition by consent. In the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and Another¹ the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether non-compoundable offences could be quashed by exercise of writ jurisdiction/inherent power of the High Court. Upon discussing

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 the law in that context in paragraph 61 the Supreme Court held as follows:

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.