ASHISH THOLIA vs RIDDHI THOLIA AND ANR — WP/1958/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 04th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM010135732026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/5742/2026

Filing Date

17-03-2026

Registration No

WP/1958/2026

Registration Date

15-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Quashing FIR, C.R., Charge Sheet - Crime against Women and Children ( 106 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

04th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 406,420,465,467,471,341,498A,120B,323,504,34
The Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

ASHISH THOLIA

Adv. Sushmitha Sherigar

Respondent(s)

RIDDHI THOLIA AND ANR

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE

21-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

27-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

Orders

04-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHWIN D. BHOBE

Case Summary: WP/1958/2026 - Ashish Tholia v. Riddhi Tholia The Bombay High Court quashed FIR No. 283/2023 (charging offences including cheating, forgery, cruelty, dowry violations) after the parties resolved their matrimonial dispute through consent terms filed in a separate family matter (ABA No. 1953/2025). The court found no useful purpose in continuing criminal prosecution, relying on Supreme Court precedent that FIRs in settled matrimonial disputes can be quashed. However, the court imposed costs (Rs. 50,000 each from petitioners and respondent-wife to welfare funds) as a condition precedent, noting the dispute should not have been escalated to police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/1958/2026 - Ashish Tholia v. Riddhi Tholia The Bombay High Court quashed FIR No. 283/2023 (charging offences including cheating, forgery, cruelty, dowry violations) after the parties resolved their matrimonial dispute through consent terms filed in a separate family matter (ABA No. 1953/2025). The court found no useful purpose in continuing criminal prosecution, relying on Supreme Court precedent that FIRs in settled matrimonial disputes can be quashed. However, the court imposed costs (Rs. 50,000 each from petitioners and respondent-wife to welfare funds) as a condition precedent, noting the dispute should not have been escalated to police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case