The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on September 19, 2025, expressed its disinclination to entertain an application seeking the recall of its own order that had previously quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and a charge-sheet for the offence of rape. A Division Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande observed that the initial decision to quash the proceedings was made after verifying all aspects, particularly the statement of the applicant and the subsequent marriage between the parties involved.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the court through Criminal Application (APL) No. 833 of 2025, filed by the original informant, referred to as ‘XYZ’. The applicant sought to recall the High Court’s order dated March 27, 2023. The said order had quashed the charge-sheet bearing No. 78/2022, dated September 29, 2022, which arose from Crime No. 284/2022 registered at Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur. The initial FIR was registered for the offence of rape.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Bench, presided over by Justice Joshi-Phalke and Justice Deshpande, began the hearing by revisiting the grounds on which the FIR and charge-sheet were originally quashed. The court referred to its own reasoning in the order dated March 27, 2023.
In that order, the court had specifically noted in paragraph 5:
“Though the crime was registered for the offence of rape, however, it is undisputed that after registration of crime, both got married and living together. Obviously, contention of criminal prosecution would become hurdle in their matrimonial life. Both are desirous to lead marital life happily. In view of that to secure the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash F.I.R. as continuation of prosecution would be exercise in futility.”
Reaffirming its earlier stance, the court in its present order dated September 19, 2025, stated, “Thus, the F.I.R. was quashed after verifying every aspect and in view of the statement made by the present applicant.”
Based on this, the Bench conveyed its reluctance to proceed with the new application. The order records, “Therefore, we have shown our dis-inclination to entertain the application.”
Decision of the Court
Despite expressing its disinclination, the court did not dismiss the application. Following a request from the applicant’s counsel, Mr. V.S. Mishra, the court granted more time. The order notes, “Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to seek instructions from the applicant.”
The court has adjourned the hearing, listing the matter to be heard next on September 20, 2025.
Mr. V.S. Mishra appeared for the applicant, while Smt. Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1).
