(27) WP-1924.26.DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1924 OF 2026 Shashank Rajendra Hagawane and anr. : Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. ---- Mr. Tanmay Kate a/w Mr. Ashraf Kazi i/by Mr. Vipul Dushing for the Petitioners. Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari for Respondent No.2. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 25 JUNE 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No. 332 of 2025 (impugned FIR) registered with the Mahalunge MIDC Police Station, Pune, for offences 1 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2026.06.29 16:13:38 +0530 (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the charge-sheet arising out of the impugned FIR. 3. Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR arises out of a private commercial dispute. To clarify, they submit that the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 was an amount payable with reference to a JCB machine. They submit that the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the said commercial dispute and hence the Respondent No.2 has given his no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR. They submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR does not pertain to public funds or to funds of the Government or financial institutions. They therefore request for quashing of the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 4. Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, states that the Petitioners are presently lodged at Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, confirms that the Petitioners are lodged at Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. 5. Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, tenders the Photostat copies of the Petitioners Identity Cards, 2 (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX which are taken on record and marked as “X-Colly” for identification. 6. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by his Advocate Mr. Onkar Chaudhari. He tenders the Photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card, which is taken on record and marked as “X-1” for identification. 7. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, states that the Affidavit affirmed by Respondent No.2 on 25 June 2026 before the Notary S. C. Patil, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai is placed on record, same is marked as “X-2” for identification. 8. Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed of his own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. He states that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are as per his say. He states that the impugned FIR was lodged by him because the Petitioners owed him money. He submits that as the Petitioners have now paid the entire amount due and payable by them to him, he does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings. He reiterates his no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. He relies on paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the Affidavit (X-2), which are transcribed herein below in verbatim :- “4. Pursuant to this, after discussions with Shashank Hagawane's relatives, I have received the due amount of ₹5,35,000/- from Shashank Hagawane by way of a Demand Draft No. 087635 of The Federal Bank. In fact, the dispute between us was of a civil nature, and it was 3 (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX only due to a misunderstanding that a criminal complaint was filed. It was never my intention to initiate any criminal proceedings in this matter. 5. As I have received the amount due to me and all disputes between me and the Hagawane family have been settled amicably by mutual understanding. I have no desire to continue with the said criminal proceedings. Therefore, through this affidavit, I request that since I have no complaint against the accused, they may be discharged from the said offence. 6. As our dispute has been settled, I have no objection to the quashing of Crime Register No. 332/2025 registered at Mahalunge Police Station, as well as the related charge sheet and the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 726/2025 in the JMFC Court at Khed.” 9. Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent/State, submits that in view of the Affidavit (X-2) filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No. 1/State has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings. He, however, submits that a purely commercial dispute was taken to the police station, which was not meant to be considered by the police, he, therefore, insists on the imposition of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2. 10. Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, on instructions, submit that the appropriate costs would be paid. 11. Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the subject matter of the impugned FIR being a commercial 4 (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX dispute, the same having been settled between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 having given his no-objection in the Affidavit (X-2) and further stating before this Court that he is not interested in continuing with the criminal proceedings, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. 12. Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab1, Narinder Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anr2 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat3, there is no impediment in allowing this Petition. 13. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition NO.1924 of 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) subject to the Petitioners jointly paying a total of Rs.50,000/- as costs and the Respondent No.2 paying costs of Rs.25,000/-, as costs. Payment of costs (total of Rs. 75,000/-) is a condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the Charge- sheet arising out of the impugned FIR are quashed. 14. The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 shall deposit their respective costs in the below-mentioned Account within a period of two weeks from today and file in the Registry of this Court the compliance affidavit along with the proof of deposit on or before 15 July 2026. 1 2012 10 SCC 303 2 2014 6 SCC 466 3 2017 9 SCC 641 5 (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX a] Each of the Petitioners shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent No.2 shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- in :- The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai Account No.: 000120110001337 Bank : Bank of India Branch : Mumbai Main IFSC Code : BKID0000001 15. The Criminal Writ Petition No.1924 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 6