The case revolved around a criminal complaint filed by the respondent (informant), alleging various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was registered in 2017 at the Malabar Hill police station (C.R. No. 40/2017), accusing the applicant (husband) and his family members of subjecting the informant to physical and mental harassment, including charges under Sections 498A (cruelty), 325 (causing grievous hurt), 323 (voluntary hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (intentional insult), and Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The informant also alleged that her stridhan (personal property) was unlawfully retained by her in-laws.

While the criminal case was ongoing, the informant initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also sought a divorce. After a period of negotiation, the parties reached an amicable settlement, and the divorce was granted by mutual consent on October 23, 2024, in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The consent terms stipulated in the divorce settlement covered various aspects, including child custody, property division, and a clause for the withdrawal of the domestic violence case.

Significantly, the informant, in her affidavit filed before the High Court, expressed her no objection to the quashing of the present criminal proceedings, which were based on the earlier complaint. This gesture was in line with the terms of the settlement, and the informant acknowledged that the continuation of the criminal case would not serve any purpose, given the agreed-upon resolution.

The applicants sought to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, relying on the settlement between the parties. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The court considered whether these powers could be exercised in a case where the parties had amicably settled their disputes.

The Bombay High Court referred to a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), which held that the High Court can invoke its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even after conviction, especially in cases where the offences involved are not heinous in nature and the parties have arrived at a voluntary compromise. The judgment emphasized that the ends of justice must guide the exercise of these powers, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the seriousness of the injury, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused.

While the charges in the present case involved serious allegations, including grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC, the fact that the informant voluntarily withdrew her objection to the quashing of the proceedings, coupled with the comprehensive settlement agreement, played a crucial role in the court's decision.

The Bombay High Court acknowledged the settlement and the mutual consent of the parties, particularly highlighting the welfare of the child involved in the dispute. The consent terms provided a clear arrangement for the child's custody and made provisions for the future, including specific clauses for non-interference in personal lives post-divorce. The court also noted that the informant had no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings, indicating that the continuation of the case would only serve to prolong the litigation without achieving any meaningful purpose.

The High Court emphasized that the case was not one involving heinous crimes, and the settlement, which was in the best interests of both parties, was a significant factor in the decision. The judgment concluded that the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent the abuse of legal processes and to allow the parties to move forward with their lives.

The decision of the Bombay High Court reflects a progressive approach to resolving matrimonial and personal disputes, even when criminal charges are involved. By prioritizing settlement and the welfare of the child, the court exercised its powers to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, thereby ensuring that the parties could lead their lives independently without the burden of prolonged litigation.

This case serves as an important reminder that the criminal justice system is not solely about punishment but also about providing a platform for reconciliation and ensuring that justice is served in a manner that benefits all parties involved, especially when a fair and voluntary settlement has been reached.

In conclusion, the High Court's intervention underscores the potential for resolving legal disputes through mutual consent while safeguarding the rights of individuals, particularly in sensitive matters like domestic violence and matrimonial disputes.