Bombay High Court

CARMEN MARIA MONIZ AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 10 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed, subject to each party depositing Rs.25,000 as costs.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of FIR No. 90/2026 registered for an alleged offence under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR stemmed from a commercial dispute over the sale of a flat, which the parties resolved by a Settlement Agreement dated 4 April 2026, and the complainant (Respondent No.2) submitted an affidavit voluntarily consenting to the quash. The State, while not objecting to the quash, demanded costs of Rs.50,000 each from the parties. The Court, noting the settlement, the complainant’s free consent, and Supreme Court precedents allowing quash of criminal proceedings where the dispute is civil in nature, allowed the petition subject to each side paying Rs.25,000. Consequently, the FIR was quashed and the petition disposed.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR arising from a commercial dispute, now settled, can be quashed under Article 226 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the complainant's voluntary consent and settlement bar continuation of criminal prosecution under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether costs may be imposed on the parties despite the settlement and consent.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2)

Subjects

quash FIR
commercial dispute
settlement agreement
Article 226
Section 528
Section 316(2)
costs
criminal prosecution
complainant consent

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL (22) WP-2133.26.DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.07.13
14:56:49
+0530 lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2133 OF 2026

Carmen Maria Moniz and anr. : Petitioners.
Versus.
State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.

-----

Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh a/w Advocate Paluck Bengali and Bijal Parik
i/by Paluck Bengali for the Petitioners.
Ms. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar i/by Ms. Li Shu Fen for Respondent
No.2.
WPSI Guari V Date Pairavi Officer, Mahim Police Station present.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 10 JULY 2026
PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Ms Rajeshree Neston, learned APP for the Respondent
No.1/State and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, 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 filed by the Petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing No. 90 of
2026, dated 19 February 2026, registered with the Mahim Police

1
(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX

Station, Mumbai (impugned FIR), for offences punishable under
Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2, submit that the subject matter of the impugned
FIR was a commercial transaction in which the Petitioners had
agreed to sell a flat to Respondent No.2. They submit that the
transaction did not materialize, leading Respondent No.2 to file a
complaint, which is registered as the impugned FIR. They submit
that the said commercial dispute has been amicably resolved
between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 by the execution of
a Settlement Agreement dated 04 April 2026. They submit that in
view of the settlement, Respondent No.2 has given his no-objection
to the quashing of the impugned FIR. They therefore request the
quashing of the impugned FIR.

4. Petitioners appear through V.C. They are identified by their
Advocate Mr Shakeeb Shaikh. He tenders the photostat copies of
the Petitioners’ Identity Cards, which are taken on record and
marked with “X-Colly” for identification.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by
his Advocate Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar. He tenders the
photostat copy of Respondent No.2’s Identity Card, which is taken
on record and marked with “X-1” for identification.

6. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 09 July 2026
affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary R M Tiwari,
Mumbai is placed on record, the same is marked with “X-2” for

2
(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX

identification. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar states that the
Settlement Agreement dated 04 April 2026 is also placed on
record, the same is marked with “X-3” for identification.

7. Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed
out 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
true and as per his say. He states that the commercial dispute in
respect of the flat is now resolved by virtue of the Settlement
Agreement (X-3). He states that he has no grievance whatsoever in
nature against the Petitioners in view of the settlement. He states
that in view of the settlement, he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the Petitioners and seeks their
termination. He states that he would not support the prosecution’s
case. He refers to and relies on the contents of paragraph Nos. 2 to
6 of his Affidavit (X-2) which are transcribed herein below in
verbatim:-

“2. I say that I am the Complainant at whose instance the
aforesaid FIR bearing No. 90 / 2026 came to be registered
on 19th February 2026 at Mahim Police Station against the
Petitioners herein. I am therefore fully conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the present case and I am
competent to depose to the facts stated hereunder.

3. I say that pursuant to the said amicable settlement
arrived at outside the Court, no grievance, dispute or claim
whatsoever survives between the Petitioners and myself in
respect of the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR.

4. I say that in view of the said amicable settlement, I do
not wish to continue with the prosecution against the
Petitioners in respect of FIR bearing No. 90 / 2026
registered with Mahim Police Station. I have no objection to
the quashing and setting aside of the said FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ‫بر‬

5. I say that I have voluntarily and out of my own free will
decided to give my consent for the quashing of the said FIR.

3
(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX

No person has threatened, coerced, induced or pressurized
me, in any manner whatsoever, to give the present consent.

6. I say that I have fully understood the contents and
implications of the present consent, and with full
knowledge hereof, I hereby grant my unconditional and
unequivocal consent for the quashing of FIR No. 90 / 2026
registered with Mahim Police Station.”

8. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent
No.1/State, submits that the commercial dispute between the
Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 being amicably resolved, the
Respondent No.1-State has no objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR. She, however, submits that, since a commercial
dispute has been given a criminal flavour and taken to the police
station by setting the police machinery in motion, she insists on the
imposition of costs of Rs.50,000/- each on the Petitioners as well
as the Respondent No.2.

9. Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Petitioners
and Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No.2, on instructions, submit that the appropriate
costs would be paid.

10. Considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, the
submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, the nature of
the dispute being a commercial transaction which is now resolved
between the parties, as submitted by the learned Advocates for the
parties and confirmed by Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court
and further the statements made by Respondent No. 2 in this Court
and in his Affidavit (X-2), no useful purpose will be served by
allowing the criminal prosecution to continue.

4
(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX

11. Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab 1, Narinder Singh
and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anr2 and Parbatbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat3, there is no impediment in
allowing this Petition.

12. In view of the above, subject to Petitioners jointly paying
costs of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent No.2 paying costs of
Rs.25,000/- this Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Payment of costs is a condition precedent. Consequently, the
impugned FIR is quashed.

13. The Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 shall deposit their
respective costs in the account mentioned below within four weeks
from today and file the compliance affidavit, along with proof of
deposit, in the Registry of this Court on or before 14 August 2026.

a] The Petitioners shall jointly deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/- in :-

District Legal and Fund Member Secretary
Bank : Bank of Maharashtra
Branch : 00014 Nasik City, Nanamangal, Tilak Road Nasik
IFS Code : MAHB0000014
Account No.: 60050313041
b] The Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the amount of Rs.
25,000/-in :

District Legal and Fund Member Secretary
Bank : Bank of Maharashtra
Branch : 00014 Nasik City, Nanamangal, Tilak Road Nasik
IFS Code : MAHB0000014
Account No.: 60050313041
1
2012 10 SCC 303
2
2014 6 SCC 466
3
2017 9 SCC 641

5
(22) WP-2133.26.DOCX

14. The Criminal Writ Petition No.2133 of 2026 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…