48.WP.5509.2024.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5509 OF 2024 Nilesh Ashok Chavan And Anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Abhishek U. Arote a/w. Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar, Advocates for Petitioners.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Ghanasham Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Arote, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing First Information Report No.162 of 2024 registered with Sangvi Police Station, Pune under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. After hearing Mr. Arote, learned Advocate for the petitioners, on 09.09.2026, the following order was passed:- “1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. 1 of 5 48.WP.5509.2024.doc 2. Heard Mr. Arote, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 3. The dispute is between the owner and franchise with regard to a business relationship rather long standing business relationship between them. The dispute is with regard to non-payment or non- receipt of an amount of Rs. 2.82/- lacs only for which the Complainant has filed a case for cheating and breach of trust. Mr. Arote, learned Counsel would submit that the dispute between the parties prima facie arises out of a franchise transaction and is essentially commercial in nature and therefore, this Court should step in. Another strong circumstance which he would forcefully submit is the fact that the concerned amount of Rs. 2.85/- lacs has already been repaid back by the Petitioner on 26.09.2024 which has been duly stated otherwise at page 21 of the Petition and also forms part of the FIR and the receipt to that effect is also shown to the Court. I have no reason to disbelieve the learned Counsel regarding the above circumstances. That apart, one of the Petitioners is suffering from stage 4 medical ailment of Caner and is undergoing treatment. Therefore, the learned Counsel persuades the Court to determine the present Petition and end the ignominy of the Petitioners. Arguable case is made out by Mr. Arote, learned Counsel for the Petitioners for immediate intervention. Hence, in above facts, there shall be ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) & (d) of the Petition. 4. In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondent. Hamdast permitted. Private notice permitted. Affidavit of service be filed on the next date. 5. Stand over to 18.09.2026, First On Board.” 4. Today Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate appears for the Complainant-Respondent No.2, before the court. In his usual fair mindedness, he would submit that what is stated in the aforesaid order is true and correct and his client has received the entire amount of Rs.2.85 Lakhs which is the subject matter of the dispute. However, he would submit that in order to get the franchise allotted and with the prospect of the franchise being run by the Complainant, the Complainant had invested substantial amounts in renovating and doing the interior of the shop premises. He would also submit that the Complainant had also taken the shop on leave and license basis for the 2 of 5 48.WP.5509.2024.doc purpose of putting up the said franchise and followed the due process of law and only thereafter the Complainant had paid the franchise amount of Rs.2.85 Lakhs with the franchise fees together with the GST amount and therefore in view of cancellation of the present Agreement or relationship between the parties the Complainant has faced a substantial loss to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs. 5. He would submit that the loss incurred by the Complainant needs to be compensated. Mr. Jadhav would undoubtedly be otherwise correct but the forum before which the issue needs to be agitated and resolved maybe not the present criminal proceedings. The record prima facie shows that the Complainant’s franchise agreement was cancelled by the Petitioners in view of the fact that the Complainant had opened a similar ice cream business through a rival vendor in the same market within close proximity and therefore that was the reason for not going ahead with the relationship between the Petitioner and the Complainant. 6. I need not go into the depth of those issues because they are not germane to the present proceedings for quashing. The reason for mentioning the aforesaid issue is only because grievance is made by Mr. Jadhav that having incurred a loss of Rs.25 Lakhs on the incumbent shop which was taken on leave and license and having spent on renovation and interiors, compensation of Rs. 25 Lakhs 3 of 5 48.WP.5509.2024.doc should be paid to him. Nevertheless, if at all the franchisee is entitled to any damages from the Petitioners, I leave that question expressly open for the franchisee i.e. the Complainant before the Court to agitate the same before an appropriate forum or Court of law. 7. I also direct that whatever is stated herein will not come in the way of the franchisee to seek any damages that the franchisee may have incurred, in view of the relationship between the parties. However to the extent of the criminal proceedings, in view of the amount having been paid back and the same having been acknowledged to have been received by the franchisee, I do not find any reason as to why the present criminal proceedings should be continued. 8. Needless to state that criminal proceedings cannot be gone into or be protracted merely for settling scores or for extracting recovery between the parties. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the guidelines given in paragraph No.102 of State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1, the Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b):- “b. That, after perusing the record, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Quash the FIR bearing No.162/2024 dated 16/04/2024 and chargesheet dated 30.12.24 bearing No.277 of 2024 for offence’s u/s 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with the Sangvi Police station.” 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 5 48.WP.5509.2024.doc 10. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 5 of 5 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.24 21:03:54 +0530