Bombay High Court

BILAL SHAFI SENDULE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the FIR may be quashed by the consent of the parties involved, even if only some of the accused consent, in accordance with the cited precedents.

Summary

The applicants, two of six accused in FIR CR No.- I-236 of 2025, sought to have the FIR quashed by mutual consent with the complainant, who are all family members. The State objected, arguing that quashing by consent could not proceed when only some accused consented. The court examined the legal position, relying on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lovely Salhotra & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi (2017). Finding no impediment, the court held that the FIR could be quashed by the parties’ consent despite the absence of the other four accused, and ordered the FIR to be dismissed under the relevant sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Indian Registration Act. The applicants were also directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000 to the High Court library.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR can be quashed by consent when only a subset of the accused and the complainant agree to the settlement.
Whether the precedents set in Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Lovely Salhotra & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi are applicable to the present case.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318, 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2)
Registration Act — s. 82

Subjects

quashment of FIR
consent decree
criminal procedure
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Indian Registration Act
family dispute
partial consent
precedent

Judgment

50.APL.1385.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
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 Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.29
10:11:03 +0530

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…