50.APL.1385.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1385 OF 2026 Bilal Shafi Sendule and Anr. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Nilesh Navale, Advocate for Applicants.  Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Meghashyam Kochrekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Navale, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Kochrekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. After hearing the parties on 14.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “1. Heard Mr. Navale, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for State and Mr. Kochrekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Applicants before me are 2 accused persons out of 6 accused persons in the present FIR. They and the Complainant both are requesting the Court to quash the FIR by consent. They are relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 and decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 dated 10.04.2017. 3. Since learned APP has raised a grievance that quashing by consent is only with some of the accused persons, he is directed 1 Judgment dated 17.03.2023 in Cri. WP 3721/2018 1 of 4 50.APL.1385.2026.doc to examine the legal position and accordingly apprise the Court on the next adjourned date. 4. Applicants and Complainant are all part of the same family. It is submitted that the Applicants and Complainant who are the seeking quashing are the family members whereas the other 4 accused persons are two Advocates and two witnesses to the concerned transaction which is impugned and the subject matter of the FIR. The two Advocates and two witnesses are not coming forth and traceable as informed to the Court. 5. Stand over to 28th August, 2026.” 3. Carrying forward from the said order, Affidavit of Respondent No.2 dated 30.07.2026 is placed on record before me. Considering the lis between the parties and the statements made in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the Consent Affidavit which are being delineated and reproduced below for ease of reference, the Application is considered for quashing of the FIR. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the Consent Affidavit read thus:- 4. I say and submit that the Petitioners herein are my family members, and I have sold my rights, title and interest in the subject property in their favour. Pursuant thereto, I have executed the Consent Terms, duly notarized, which form part of the present Petition. I further state that the parties are in the process of executing the Sale Deed in favour of Petitioner No. 1, Ms. Faiza Siddiqui. 5. I further say and submit that we have already received a sum of Rs. 1,27,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), and the remaining/balance amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be received at the time of registration of the Sale Deed, thereby completing the entire consideration amount as agreed and recorded in the Consent Terms. In view of the above, we have no complaints, claims, or grievances against the Petitioners.” 4. In view of the above, I see no impediment in allowing the present Application for quashing the Complaint qua the Applicants 2 of 4 50.APL.1385.2026.doc before me, who are 2 out of the 6 Accused persons in the present First Information Report. 5. Even otherwise, in the aforesaid facts, the case of the Applicants is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others2 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.3 passed in Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017, dated 10.04.2017, I cannot take a different view. 6. Hence in view of the above, the Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) which reads this:- “A) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to kindly grant permission to the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 to amicably settle their dispute and accordingly thereby be pleased to quash CR No.- I- 236 of 2025, registered with Bhayander Police Station, under Sections 318, 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 82 of the Indian Registration Act, (“said FIR”) lodged by the Respondent No.2 on such terms and conditions as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 7. However, I direct the Applicants to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai in view of the criminal law having been set into motion due to Applicants’ acts. 8. . Applicants are directed to deposit the aforesaid costs / amounts as directed within a period of one week from today and show compliance. 2 Cri. Writ Petition No.3721 of 2018 – Decided on 17.03.2023 3 Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017 – Decided on 10.04.2017. 3 of 4 50.APL.1385.2026.doc 9. List the matter on 04th September 2026 for compliance. 10. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 4 of 4 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.29 10:11:03 +0530