1. Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 528/2025 dated 21.10.2025 registered with Police Station, Jalalkheda, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [corresponding Sections 307, 506 and 34 respectively, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)] as well as Charge-sheet No. 141/2025 and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 158/2026 pending on the file of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
3. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under :
i] Applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant no.2 is the father-in-law of the complainant/non-applicant no.2. Out of the wedlock, the complainant and applicant no.1 were blessed with two children. Since marriage of the complainant with non-applicant no.1 she was residing with applicant no.1 and her two daughters at Nagpur. The complainant lodged report with Police Station, Jalalkheda, Nagpur on 21.10.2015. It is alleged that while the complainant was cohabiting with applicant no.1 and was residing with his family members, applicant no.1 habitually quarreled with her and applicant no.2 subjected her to harassment.
ii] On 18.10.2025 at about 3:00 pm when the complainant and applicant no.1 went to the matrimonial house, applicant no.1 quarreled with the complainant. During their argument, applicant no.2 was instigating applicant no.1 for harassing her.
iii] On 21.10.2025 the applicants again argued and quarrelled with the complainant. Applicant no.1 assaulted her by means of a stick on her head due to which she sustained bleeding injury. Applicant no.2 also hit her head on the wall and hit on her left hand by means of a stick. The applicants forcibly tried to pour pesticide in her mouth. Applicant no.2 was institating applicant no.1 not to leave the complainant till she dies. They also threatened the complainant that they will kill her parents. On these allegations, the complainant lodged report with the police station, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard Mr. A. S. Band, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. H. D. Futane, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Mr. C.D. Dhanjode, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/complainant.
5. This application has been filed for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings on the ground of settlement. It is to be noted here that the applicants are charged for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS apart from other offences and this offence is of a serious nature. The applicants have attempted to pour a poisonous substance (pesticide), in the complainant’s mouth. Moever, the offence is non-compoundable in nature.
6. No doubt, in serious offence like Section 109(1) of the BNS, a care has to be taken and only when attending circumstances are made out the offence should be quashed on account of the settlement. With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed that “power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution”.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3682, wherein in para Nos.20 and 27 it has been observed as under :
“20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
. . . . . . . . .
27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.”
8. Thus, what is deduced from the aforesaid authorities is that quashing of the FIR in a serious crime like Section 109(1) of the BNS (old Sec. 307 of the IPC), exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be done only after investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed and if lawful resolution ensures the welfare of the wife and the child, In such cases, the judicial discretion for exercising the inherent power of the Court can be exercised. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in a similarly placed case of Bharat Pathania Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 12798/2025, wherein the Supreme Court quashed serious criminal charges against the appellant, prioritizing family welfare and stability, however imposed a strict undertaking with cautioning consequences of breach.
9. In the present case, an affidavit filed by non-applicant no.2 contending that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicants and herself. They are residing together along with their two children. Therefore, she does not want to prosecute the husband and the father-in-law. She has further stated in the affidavit that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings initiated against the applicants are quashed and set aside.
10. Non-applicant no.2 is present in person today through her counsel. She has been duly identified by her counsel. On an enquiry with her, she reiterated the contents of the affidavit.
11. The relation between applicant no.1 and the complainant is of husband and wife. The dispute between them has been resolved by way an amicable settlement, rather the complainant is residing happily with applicant no.1 along with their two children. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings may not advance the ends of justice and welfare of the complainant and her family. Rather, closing the proceedings will serve both individual and social interests. The continuation of the proceedings will not only be hindrance in leading happy marital life by the complainant but will be a futile exercise.
12. In view of the peculiar facts, a case is made for exercising inherent power of the Court under Section 528 of the BNS (Old Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.) to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings against the applicants. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, this order :
13. The Criminal Application is allowed.
14. First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 528/2025 dated 21.10.2025 registered with Police Station, Jalalkheda, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) as well as Charge-sheet No. 141/2025 and consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Case No. 158/2026 pending on the file of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur against the applicants are quashed and set aside.
