2025:BHC-AS:50675-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1008 OF 2021 Shripad Dnyaneshwar Kedari and others … Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents Mr. Ashish Agarkar (through video-conferencing) for applicant.

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Rushikesh Gajanan Patil for respondent No.2.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 24^th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

. By this application, the applicants (accused) have prayed for quashing of FIR No.0479 of 2020 dated 26.09.2020 registered at Bhosari Police Station, District Pimpri-Chinchwad, and consequential criminal case being R.C.C. No.551 of 2021 along with chargesheet. The FIR was registered at the behest of respondent No.2 (first informant), who is the wife of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.2 to 5 are the relatives of applicant No.1.

2. The learned counsel for applicant submitted that during the pendency of this application, applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 settled their differences and they obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the said Act). It was submitted that the parties filed a joint application in such divorce decree by mutual consent. In the said application, both the parties agreed that they would withdraw all allegations and proceedings against each other, in the light of the settlement between them. The learned counsel for the applicant tendered a copy of the joint application filed by the parties under PRIYA DbKyA ig MPitRa BIl LYy IA signed KAMBLID21+ 07 a 0 2: t 54 e5 36 :. 0 1:417.24 1/4 Section 13-B of the said Act before the Family Court at Pune. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’. Copy of the order dated 01.03.2025 is also tendered, whereby the said joint application was allowed and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, under Section 13-B of the said Act. Copy of the said order is also taken on record and marked ‘Y’.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that in the light of the settlement between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, the said respondent has no objection to the present application being allowed by consent. It was submitted that the said respondent had agreed to withdraw all allegations against the applicants.

4. The present proceedings do involve cognizable and non- compoundable offences. But, it is settled law that when disputes between the parties essentially arise out of matrimonial disputes or disputes of civil nature, upon the differences being sorted out, this Court may exercise inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash such criminal proceeding, as continuation of the same would not serve any fruitful purpose.

5. In the case of of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another [2012 (10) SCC 303], the Supreme Court took into consideration such situations, where non-compoundable offences were registered and yet, it was found that the facts and circumstances that subsequently came on record, justified quashing by consent. 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. How