Kajal Sanjay Shelke Alias Shambhavi Sandeep Deshpande v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
by GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI Date:
2026.01.28 20:58:14 +0530 GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2026 Janardhan Vitthal Chandane & Ors.
... Applicants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2026 Janardhan Vitthal Chandane & Anr.
... Applicants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents --- Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w Mr. Suraj M. i/b Mr. Prashant Raul, Advocates for Applicants in both Applications. Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in both Applications.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent - State. Mr. S. G. Yadav - PSI, (Pairavi Officer), MRA Marg, Police Station. --- CORAM :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE :
19th JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026 is not on board. Upon mentioning by Mr. Sanjeev Kadam and by consent of Mr. Sidheshwar Birder and Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP, taken on board. Advocates for the parties submit that the issues involved in both Applications are similar, as such they request for disposal of the same by a common order.
2.
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for Applicants in both the Applications, submits that the subject matter of Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026 is the FIR bearing No. 0798 of 2024 registered before MRA Marg Police Station, whereas the subject matter of Criminal Application No. 79 of 2026 is the FIR bearing No. 43 of 2025 registered with MRA Marg Police Station. He submits that Applicants in both the Applications are present in Court, he identifies the Applicants.
3.
Respondent No. 2 in both the Applications is present along with his Advocate Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar. He tenders a photostat copy of the Identity Card of Respondent No. 2, same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
4.
Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar tenders affidavit dated 8th January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before Notary Aparna Vhatkar, in Criminal Application No. 79 of 2026, which is taken on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification. He tenders affidavit dated 16th January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No.2 before Notary Bidhu Panicker, in Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026, same is taken on record and marked as 'X-2' for identification. 5.
Respondent No. 2 (Rupesh Kumar Bhaidas Ahire) states that contents of the affidavit at 'X-1' and 'X-2' are explained to him in Marathi by his Advocate Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar and upon the contents of the said affidavits being found to be as per his say, he has signed the affidavit before the Notary. He states that the affidavits at 'X-1' and 'X-2' are filed by him out of his own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. He states that the subject matter of both the FIR's being amicably settled by him and the Applicants, he has no objection for quashing of both the FIRs which are the subject matter of these Applications.
6.
Applicants in these Applications, who are present in Court, state that the dispute between them and the Respondent No. 2 is amicably resolved. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2, therefore, jointly submit that the criminal proceedings filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Applicants may not be continued and the same be quashed.
7.
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State, submits that continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose in view of the statements made by the Advocates for the parties before this Court. He on the basis of contents of the affidavit 'X-1' & 'X-2' submits that the impugned FIR in both the Applications can be quashed.
8.
Considering the statements made by the Respondent No.2 in the affidavits marked as 'X-1' & 'X-2', the nature of dispute between the parties, the no objection of the Respondent No. 2 to quash the criminal proceedings and having regards to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab,1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2 both these Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, both the FIR's impugned in these Applications bearing No. 43 of 2025 and bearing No. 0198 of 2024 registered at MRA Marg, Police Station, are quashed. 9.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466