(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2133 OF 2026 Carmen Maria Moniz and anr. : Petitioners. Versus. State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. ----- Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh a/w Advocate Paluck Bengali and Bijal Parik i/by Paluck Bengali for the Petitioners. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar i/by Ms. Li Shu Fen for Respondent No.2. WPSI Guari V Date Pairavi Officer, Mahim Police Station present. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 10 JULY 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Ms Rajeshree Neston, learned APP for the Respondent No.1/State and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, 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 filed by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing No. 90 of 2026, dated 19 February 2026, registered with the Mahim Police 1 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2026.07.13 14:56:49 +0530 (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX Station, Mumbai (impugned FIR), for offences punishable under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR was a commercial transaction in which the Petitioners had agreed to sell a flat to Respondent No.2. They submit that the transaction did not materialize, leading Respondent No.2 to file a complaint, which is registered as the impugned FIR. They submit that the said commercial dispute has been amicably resolved between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 by the execution of a Settlement Agreement dated 04 April 2026. They submit that in view of the settlement, Respondent No.2 has given his no-objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. They therefore request the quashing of the impugned FIR. 4. Petitioners appear through V.C. They are identified by their Advocate Mr Shakeeb Shaikh. He tenders the photostat copies of the Petitioners’ Identity Cards, which are taken on record and marked with “X-Colly” for identification. 5. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by his Advocate Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar. He tenders the photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card, which is taken on record and marked with “X-1” for identification. 6. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 09 July 2026 affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary R M Tiwari, Mumbai is placed on record, the same is marked with “X-2” for 2 (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX identification. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar states that the Settlement Agreement dated 04 April 2026 is also placed on record, the same is marked with “X-3” for identification. 7. Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed out 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 true and as per his say. He states that the commercial dispute in respect of the flat is now resolved by virtue of the Settlement Agreement (X-3). He states that he has no grievance whatsoever in nature against the Petitioners in view of the settlement. He states that in view of the settlement, he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners and seeks their termination. He states that he would not support the prosecution’s case. He refers to and relies on the contents of paragraph Nos. 2 to 6 of his Affidavit (X-2) which are transcribed herein below in verbatim:- “2. I say that I am the Complainant at whose instance the aforesaid FIR bearing No. 90 / 2026 came to be registered on 19th February 2026 at Mahim Police Station against the Petitioners herein. I am therefore fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and I am competent to depose to the facts stated hereunder. 3. I say that pursuant to the said amicable settlement arrived at outside the Court, no grievance, dispute or claim whatsoever survives between the Petitioners and myself in respect of the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR. 4. I say that in view of the said amicable settlement, I do not wish to continue with the prosecution against the Petitioners in respect of FIR bearing No. 90 / 2026 registered with Mahim Police Station. I have no objection to the quashing and setting aside of the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.رب 5. I say that I have voluntarily and out of my own free will decided to give my consent for the quashing of the said FIR. 3 (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX No person has threatened, coerced, induced or pressurized me, in any manner whatsoever, to give the present consent. 6. I say that I have fully understood the contents and implications of the present consent, and with full knowledge hereof, I hereby grant my unconditional and unequivocal consent for the quashing of FIR No. 90 / 2026 registered with Mahim Police Station.” 8. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent No.1/State, submits that the commercial dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 being amicably resolved, the Respondent No.1-State has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. She, however, submits that, since a commercial dispute has been given a criminal flavour and taken to the police station by setting the police machinery in motion, she insists on the imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- each on the Petitioners as well as the Respondent No.2. 9. Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, on instructions, submit that the appropriate costs would be paid. 10. Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the nature of the dispute being a commercial transaction which is now resolved between the parties, as submitted by the learned Advocates for the parties and confirmed by Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and further the statements made by Respondent No. 2 in this Court and in his Affidavit (X-2), no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. 4 (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX 11. 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. 12. In view of the above, subject to Petitioners jointly paying costs of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent No.2 paying costs of Rs.25,000/- this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Payment of costs is a condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR is quashed. 13. The Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 shall deposit their respective costs in the account mentioned below within four weeks from today and file the compliance affidavit, along with proof of deposit, in the Registry of this Court on or before 14 August 2026. a] The Petitioners shall jointly deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- in :- District Legal and Fund Member Secretary Bank : Bank of Maharashtra Branch : 00014 Nasik City, Nanamangal, Tilak Road Nasik IFS Code : MAHB0000014 Account No.: 60050313041 b] The Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/-in : District Legal and Fund Member Secretary Bank : Bank of Maharashtra Branch : 00014 Nasik City, Nanamangal, Tilak Road Nasik IFS Code : MAHB0000014 Account No.: 60050313041 1 2012 10 SCC 303 2 2014 6 SCC 466 3 2017 9 SCC 641 5 (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX 14. The Criminal Writ Petition No.2133 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 6