SHASHANK RAJENDRA HAGAWANE AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

            Digitally signed
            by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT   GOPAL                                                       (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX
GOPAL       CHANDAN
CHANDAN     Date:
            2026.06.29
            16:13:38 +0530                                                                 lgc

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1924 OF 2026


                        Shashank Rajendra Hagawane and anr.               : Petitioners.
                              Versus
                        State of Maharashtra and anr.                     : Respondents.
                                               ----

                        Mr. Tanmay Kate a/w Mr. Ashraf Kazi i/by Mr. Vipul Dushing
                        for the Petitioners.
                        Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent/State.
                        Mr. Onkar Chaudhari for Respondent No.2.
                                              -------

                                              CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                               DATED :        25 JUNE 2026
                        PC:-



                        1.     Heard Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the
                        Petitioners, Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the
                        Respondent/State    and    Mr.       Onkar   Chaudhari,    learned
                        Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                        2.     This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                        India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
                        Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the Petitioners for quashing the
                        FIR bearing C.R. No. 332 of 2025 (impugned FIR) registered
                        with the Mahalunge MIDC Police Station, Pune, for offences


                                                         1
                                             (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX


punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506(2) and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and for quashing the charge-sheet arising
out of the impugned FIR.

3.    Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.2, submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR
arises out of a private commercial dispute. To clarify, they
submit that the dispute between the Petitioners and
Respondent No.2 was an amount payable with reference to a
JCB machine. They submit that the Petitioners and the
Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the said commercial
dispute and hence the Respondent No.2 has given his no
objection for quashing of the impugned FIR and the criminal
proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR. They submit
that the subject matter of the impugned FIR does not pertain
to public funds or to funds of the Government or financial
institutions.   They therefore request for quashing of the
impugned FIR and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

4.    Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
states that the Petitioners are presently lodged at Yerawada
Central Prison, Pune. Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate
for Respondent No.2, confirms that the Petitioners are lodged
at Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.

5.    Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
tenders the Photostat copies of the Petitioners Identity Cards,



                               2
                                                     (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX


which are taken on record and marked as “X-Colly” for
identification.

6.    Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is
identified by his Advocate Mr. Onkar Chaudhari. He tenders
the Photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card, which
is taken on record and marked as “X-1” for identification.

7.    Mr. Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No.2, states that the Affidavit affirmed by
Respondent No.2 on 25 June 2026 before the Notary S. C.
Patil, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai is placed on record,
same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

8.    Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is
filed of his own free will and without any pressure or coercion
from any person. He states that the contents of the Affidavit
(X-2) are as per his say. He states that the impugned FIR was
lodged by him because the Petitioners owed him money. He
submits that as the Petitioners have now               paid the entire
amount due and payable by them to him, he does not wish to
continue with the criminal proceedings. He reiterates his no
objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. He
relies on paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the Affidavit (X-2),
which are transcribed herein below in verbatim :-


          “4. Pursuant to this, after discussions with Shashank
          Hagawane's relatives, I have received the due amount of
          ₹5,35,000/- from Shashank Hagawane by way of a
          Demand Draft No. 087635 of The Federal Bank. In fact,
          the dispute between us was of a civil nature, and it was


                                    3
                                                        (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX


           only due to a misunderstanding that a criminal complaint
           was filed. It was never my intention to initiate any
           criminal proceedings in this matter.

           5. As I have received the amount due to me and all
           disputes between me and the Hagawane family have been
           settled amicably by mutual understanding. I have no
           desire to continue with the said criminal proceedings.
           Therefore, through this affidavit, I request that since I
           have no complaint against the accused, they may be
           discharged from the said offence.

           6. As our dispute has been settled, I have no objection to
           the quashing of Crime Register No. 332/2025 registered at
           Mahalunge Police Station, as well as the related charge
           sheet and the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 726/2025 in the
           JMFC Court at Khed.”




9.    Mr. V B Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, submits that in view of the Affidavit (X-2)
filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No. 1/State has
no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR and the
criminal proceedings. He, however, submits that a purely
commercial dispute was taken to the police station, which was
not meant to be considered by the police, he, therefore, insists
on the imposition of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on the
Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2.

10.   Mr. Tanmay Kate, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Onkar Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, on instructions, submit that the appropriate costs would
be paid.

11.   Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the
submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the
subject matter of the impugned FIR being a commercial

                                      4
                                               (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX


dispute, the same having been settled between the Petitioners
and the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 having given
his no-objection in the Affidavit (X-2) and further stating
before this Court that he is not interested in continuing with
the criminal proceedings, no useful purpose will be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.

12.   Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab1, Narinder
Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anr 2 and Parbatbhai
Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat3, there is no
impediment in allowing this Petition.

13.   In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition NO.1924 of
2026 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) subject
to the Petitioners jointly paying a total of Rs.50,000/- as costs
and the Respondent No.2 paying costs of Rs.25,000/-, as
costs. Payment of costs (total of Rs. 75,000/-) is a condition
precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the Charge-
sheet arising out of the impugned FIR are quashed.

14.   The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 shall deposit
their respective costs in the below-mentioned Account within
a period of two weeks from today and file in the Registry of
this Court the compliance affidavit along with the proof of
deposit on or before 15 July 2026.


1
      2012 10 SCC 303
2
      2014 6 SCC 466
3
      2017 9 SCC 641


                                5
                                           (27) WP-1924.26.DOCX


a] Each of the Petitioners shall deposit the amount of
Rs.25,000/-   and the Respondent No.2 shall deposit the
amount of Rs.25,000/- in :-

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai
Account No.: 000120110001337
Bank : Bank of India
Branch : Mumbai Main
IFSC Code : BKID0000001



15.   The Criminal Writ Petition No.1924 of 2026 is disposed
of.




                                    (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




                              6