Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2025
1. Abhijit Subash Gaikwad ]
2. Ajit Subash Gaikwad ]
3. Vijay Dagdu Tupe ]
4. Vishal Vijay Tupe ] .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, ] Through Chandannagar Police Station, Pune ]
2. Ashutosh Binay Kumar Sinha ] .. Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Mr. Siddharth R. Karpe and Ms. Keral Mehta, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rishikesh Chindarkar, Advocate, i/by Asahi Legal, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ashutosh Binay Kumar Sinha, the Respondent No.2, is present through V.C.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2025.
[ THROUGH HYBRID HEARING ] Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J.
The present Writ Petition is a part of a batch of ten writ petitions, where the petitioners are the developers of a real estate project called 'Gracia'.
2.
The FIR was registered by the respondent no.2 (the original complainant) against several persons. Out of them, the petitioners herein have settled their differences with the respondent no.2. Thus, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing, by consent, of the FIR bearing C.R. No.101 of 2016 dated 22nd May 2016 registered with the Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date:
2025.10.17 16:15:57 +0530 1/2 2-WP-1156-2025.doc Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT
Chandannagar Police Station, Pune and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3.
The respondent no.2 is present through virtual mode and identified by his Advocate, Mr. Rishikesh Chindarkar. Though there is no affidavit filed giving consent to the quashing of FIR, the respondent no.2 communicates his willingness and no objection for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings to this Court in that regard. Mr. Chindarkar reiterates his client's no objection to the quashing of the FIR and any proceedings arising therefrom. 4.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I.", (2008) 9 SCC 677 and as the petitioners do not have any further claim against the respondent no.2, continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise. Hence, Writ Petition No.1156 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as under:- "(b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 101/2016, dated 2205-2016 registered with the Respondent No.1 Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 416, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential criminal proceedings arising thereform being the charge-sheet and the RCC case number 3157/2018 pending before the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, in the interest of justice." 5.
It is clarified that the FIR bearing CR No.101 of 2016 and proceedings arising therefrom are quashed only qua the petitioners in the present Writ Petition. The proceedings as against the other accused will proceed and shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ] 2/2 2-WP-1156-2025.doc Dixit