2025:BHC-AS:53842-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2021

Pradeep Kumar Pathivada … Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents Mr. Amey Deshpande a/w. Ms. Vandana Bait and Mr. Harsh Nishar for

petitioner.

Ms. Sangita Phad, APP for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Behzad Irani for respondent No.2-first informant.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ

DATE : 09^th DECEMBER, 2025

P.C. :

. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.330 of 2020 registered at D. N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 376, 377, 420, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and therefore, the petitioner has also sought

quashing of chargesheet.

2. On 04.03.2024, this Court, while issuing notice, granted stay to further proceedings before the Trial Court. In fact, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of Sessions Case No.270 of 2021, pending

before the Sessions Judge, Dindoshi.

3. The petitioner in the present case, approached this Court, stating that his relationship with respondent No.2 was consensual in nature and it appears that having appreciated the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, interim stay of further proceedings was

granted.

PRIYA DbKyA ig MPitRa BIl LYy IA signed

KAMBLID2108 a2: t 0 e58 :.1:228.0 +90530 1/5

4. Respondent No.2 (first informant) was served and she has appeared through counsel. Today, when the petition is called out for hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has tendered a consent affidavit dated 30.07.2025 of respondent No.2, wherein it is specifically stated by her that she does not intend to pursue or prosecute this case any more and she desires to move ahead in life and that she intends to get married and focus on her career.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 jointly relied on the contents of the said affidavit, to press for the petition being allowed by consent. The affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

6. Although in the present case, serious offences have been registered against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly, when respondent No.2 (first informant) herself does not intend to prosecute the case any more, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

7. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [2012 (10) SCC 303], the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether non-compoundable offences could be quashed, by exercise of writ jurisdiction/inherent power of High Court, to terminate criminal proceedings. In paragraph No.61 of the said judgment, it was 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. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not priva