The Bombay High Court has affirmed that when a complainant, being a major adult, voluntarily settles a criminal dispute and explicitly declines to pursue prosecution, continuing the case constitutes an abuse of judicial process - even when the State opposes quashing. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts must not compel litigation where the aggrieved party has withdrawn consent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kisan s/o Devram Gafale, was named in First Information Report (FIR) No. 0250/2025, registered on 11.08.2025 at Ghargaon City Police Station, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 64, 329(1), 329(3), 352, and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant was respondent No. 2, a major adult woman. The case was subsequently converted into Sessions Case No. 69 of 2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, following a committal order dated 03.01.2026 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner, in R.C.C. No. 695/2025.
Key Facts
- The complainant (respondent No. 2) and the petitioner are both adults.
- The allegations arose from a personal dispute between the parties.
- During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties reached a mutual settlement.
- Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 18.05.2026, stating she no longer wished to proceed against the petitioner.
- She explicitly declared she would not give evidence or support the prosecution.
- No evidence of coercion, public interest harm, or third-party involvement was alleged or established.
Procedural History
- 11.08.2025: FIR No. 0250/2025 registered at Ghargaon City Police Station.
- 03.01.2026: Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangamner, committed the case to Sessions Court under R.C.C. No. 695/2025.
- 2025-2026: Sessions Case No. 69 of 2025 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner.
- 15.05.2026: Bombay High Court issued notice to respondent No. 2.
- 18.05.2026: Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit-in-reply expressing settlement and non-cooperation with prosecution.
- 22.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the dispute was private in nature, the complainant had settled the matter amicably, and her refusal to testify rendered the prosecution unsustainable. Continued proceedings would be a misuse of court process.
Respondent No. 2: Affirmed through affidavit that she had settled the matter and had no desire to pursue the case. She would not appear as a witness or assist the prosecution.
Respondent State (through A.P.P.): Opposed quashing, contending that the offences were serious, the complaint was filed by the State, and private settlement could not override public interest. Argued the affidavit was an abuse of process.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of FIR No. 0250/2025
- Quashing of Sessions Case No. 69 of 2025
- Quashing of the committal order dated 03.01.2026 in R.C.C. No. 695/2025
The Legal Issue
Can a criminal writ petition to quash an FIR be allowed when the complainant, a major adult, has settled the dispute and unequivocally stated she will not cooperate with prosecution, despite the State’s opposition on grounds of public interest?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the settled principle that courts must not permit the criminal justice system to be used as a tool for coercion or harassment where the victim has withdrawn consent. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that when a private dispute is resolved between adult parties without public harm, quashing is permissible to prevent abuse of process. He emphasized that the complainant’s affidavit was voluntary, unambiguous, and rendered the prosecution factually untenable.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the offences under Sections 64, 329, 352, and 351 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were serious and non-compoundable by nature. He argued that the State, not the complainant, was the prosecutor, and therefore private settlement could not extinguish public liability. He further claimed the affidavit was a tactical maneuver to evade accountability and amounted to abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offences and the factual posture of the case. It noted that while the offences were technically non-compoundable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the critical factor was not the statutory classification but the reality of prosecutorial feasibility. The Court observed:
"Even if this Court dismisses the present petition and even if the trial is proceeded, the respondent No. 2 is not going to support the prosecution case before the Trial Court and as such, it would amount to misuse of the process of law and Court."
The Court held that the prosecution’s case was entirely dependent on the testimony of respondent No. 2. Her refusal to testify rendered the trial a mere formality with no realistic prospect of conviction. The Court rejected the State’s argument that public interest required continuation, noting that public interest does not compel a futile prosecution. It distinguished cases involving vulnerable victims, minors, or systemic crimes, emphasizing that this was a consensual private dispute between two adults. The Court further noted that the complainant’s affidavit was not obtained under duress and was filed voluntarily before the Court. Therefore, continuing the proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose and would violate the principles of judicial economy and fairness.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court quashed FIR No. 0250/2025, Sessions Case No. 69 of 2025, and the committal order dated 03.01.2026 in R.C.C. No. 695/2025. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were directed to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000 each within two weeks, to be transferred to Cancer Hospital, Aurangabad.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Settlement Between Adults Can Justify FIR Quashing
- Practitioners may now argue that where a complainant is a major adult and voluntarily settles a private dispute, courts have discretion to quash FIRs even if offences are non-compoundable.
- The key test is whether the prosecution is viable without the complainant’s cooperation.
- Courts must assess whether continuing proceedings serves justice or merely perpetuates abuse.
State’s Opposition Alone Is Not Dispositive
- The State’s objection to quashing cannot override the factual reality of a non-cooperative complainant.
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate a compelling public interest beyond mere procedural formality.
- Courts must not treat all offences as inherently public if the victim has withdrawn consent without coercion.
Costs as Deterrent Against Tactical Settlements
- The imposition of Rs. 25,000 costs on both parties signals that courts will not reward tactical use of settlement to evade accountability.
- Costs directed to a public cause (Cancer Hospital) reinforce that quashing is not a free pass but a conditional remedy.
- Practitioners should advise clients that settlement must be genuine and not a procedural evasion.
