Shyamrao Kisanrao Salunke And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:16148 1137-appln-773-2026 (2).odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2026 Shyamrao Kisanrao Salunke And Another

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Rupesh Anil Jaiswal APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Waghmare Omprakash V. ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : APRIL 10, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

The applicants seek quashment of FIR No.38 of 2025 registered with Ardhapur Police Station, Nanded for offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and consequential proceedings.

2.

Today, learned advocates appearing for applicants and respondent no.2 made a joint submission that parties have amicably settled their dispute. Respondent no.2 has no objection as for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings. 3.

Respondent no.2 has tendered an affidavit stating that applicants had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7 lakh towards full and final settlement of dispute. On 18.02.2026, they have paid amount through D.D. Nos.500891 and 500890 in the name of Hari Om Bhojnalaya. The respondent no.2 has, therefore, consented for quashment of FIR and consequential proceeding.

1137-appln-773-2026 (2).odt (2) 4.

Parties were relegated to Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who has forwarded report of verification of parties and affidavit filed by respondent no.2. It can be observed that allegations in FIR were regarding transactions between informant and applicants. Pertinently, dispute between parties is of civil nature. They have amicably settled the same. Respondent no.2 has received amount which was due from applicants.

5.

In light of aforesaid factual matrix, considering law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, case is made out to quash FIR and further proceedings. 6.

In result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Mujaheed//