Bombay High Court

KRUSHNA RAMNATH NAIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 27 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed FIR No. 935/2025 and the chargesheet, accepting the consent settlement as determinative.

Summary

Two writ petitions were filed by accused Krushna Ramnath Naik and Dr. Mayur Vasudeo Borole seeking quash of FIR No. 935 of 2025 and the accompanying chargesheet. During anticipatory bail proceedings, the parties executed consent terms agreeing to settle the dispute, with Rs.17 lakh already paid to the private complainant and Rs.3 lakh pending. The complainant initially opposed the quash but later reconciled, prompting the court to direct his presence and examine the consent terms. The court held that the consent settlement was valid, rejected the complainant's later objection as dishonest, and ordered the demand draft of Rs.3 lakh to be handed over. Consequently, the court allowed both petitions, quashed the FIR and chargesheet, and conditioned the order on payment of costs to a charitable trust.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed under Article 226/Section 482/Section 528 on the basis of a consent settlement between the accused and the private complainant.
Whether a private complainant can withdraw consent and oppose the quash after having earlier agreed to the settlement.
Whether the consent terms filed during anticipatory bail are binding on the court for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2)
Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

quash of FIR
anticipatory bail
consent settlement
Section 482
Section 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Article 226
private complainant
criminal procedure

Judgment

30. CRI WP-3975-26 & ST-8586-26.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3975 OF 2026

Krushna Ramnath Naik .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 8586 OF 2026

Mayur Vasudeo Borole .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Gauresh Khandalekar a/w Ms. Mansi Mhatre, Advocates for
Petitioners
 Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
 Mr. Umar Kazi a/w Ms. Sonia Santis, Advocate for Respondent No.
2
 Mr. Sujit Dhanraj Lund, Respondent No. 2 is present
 Mr. Ganesh Ashok Gotke, API, Kolsewadi Kalyan (E), Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Khandalekar, Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Talhar,

learned APP for State & Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Respondent No.

2. After hearing learned Advocates for the parties, on 28.08.2026,

following order was passed:-

1 of 5
30. CRI WP-3975-26 & ST-8586-26.odt

"1. Heard Mr. Khandalekar, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Ms.
Sonia Santis, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Mr.
Nakhwa and Mr. Palkar, learned APPs for Respondent-State.
2. This is a common order passed in both the Petitions. There are
two Petitions before me, one is filed by Mr. Krushna Ramnath Naik who
is accused no. 2 in the crime. The second Petition is filed by Dr.Mayur
Vasudeo Borole who is accused no. 1 in the crime. At the time of
ABA of Dr. Mayur Borole, parties have agreed and filed consent terms
before the Court. A copy of consent terms is appended at Exhibit ‘C’
at page nos. 84 and 85 which are dated 7 th March 2026. The parties
had agreed to amicably settle the matter by consent and/or exchanging
certain amounts, all of which are reiterated in the said consent terms. It
is also further stated therein that after quashing of the offence and the
FIR No. 935 of 2025, Rs.3 Lakhs being the balance sum will be paid
over to the Respondent No.2. Mr. Khandalekar apprises the Court that
Rs. 17 Lakhs is already received by the Complainant. Copies and details
of cheques and bank statement appended from page nos. 86 to 94
prima facie show that the said amount of Rs.17 Lakhs has already been
received by the Complainant – Mr. Sujit Dhanraj Lund. He would
submit on instructions that the balance amount of Rs.3 Lakhs is also
available for immediate pay off to the private Complainant as agreed
under the consent terms at the time of ABA.
3. When these deliberations are taking place in Court, one Advocate -
Ms. Sonia Santis instructed by Mr. Umar Kazi appeared in Court and
informed the Court that she has been instructed to appear for Respondent
No.2. She would submit that her instructions are that Respondent No.2 is
opposing the quashing of petition and they would like to file a detailed
affidavit in the present matter and no orders should be passed. However,
after going through the consent terms which are appended at page
no. 84, such a defence is now not available to the Respondent No.2.
Rather it would amount to dishonesty on the part of the Respondent
No.2 to now take such a stand when earlier the Court has accepted the
consent terms during ABA proceedings. Prima facie, it appears that the
intention of the Respondent No.2 is extremely dishonest which will not
be tolerated and countenanced by this Court. Respondent No.2- Mr. Sujit
Dhanraj Lund is therefore directed to remain personally present on 27 th
August 2026 before the Court at 11:00 a.m. when this matter will be
taken up for passing final orders. The Petitioner informs the Court that
there is Demand Draft of Rs. 3 Lakhs which is also ready to be paid over
as per the consent terms which are already accepted by the Court at the
time of ABA. However, considering the objection raised by the Advocate
for Respondent No.2 today, I direct that the above amount of Rs.3 Lakhs
should not be paid over to him. The consent terms referred to quashing of
FIR 935 of 2025. They have been executed by and entered into by
Dr.Mayur Borole and the Complainant. The Complainant has signed
the said consent terms. If FIR No. 935 of 2025 is quashed, the same
will also apply to Krushna Ramnath Naik who is co-accused in a
companion Petition. Appropriate orders will be passed in both the
Petitions on the next adjourned date when Mr. Sujit Dhanraj Lund is
directed to remain present at 11:00 a.m. The concerned Advocate
representing Mr.Sujit Dhanraj Lund should ensure that he remains

2 of 5
30. CRI WP-3975-26 & ST-8586-26.odt

present on the next date. Ms. Sonia Santis, learned Advocate
appearing for Respondent No.2 should ensure that this order is
communicated to her client.
4. List the matter on 27th August 2026. To be listed ‘First On Board’.

3. Notwithstanding what is stated and recorded in the above order

and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, Mr.

Kazi, learned Advocate appears for Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.

2 is also present in Court. Mr. Kazi in his usual fair mindedness

apprises the Court that parties have reconciled their dispute and what

has been observed in the previous order parties have agreed to resolve

the same according to the terms and conditions which were filed

before the previous Court while granting anticipatory bail.

4. Mr Khandalekar, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit

that the demand draft of Rs. 3 Lakh is ready. Same is scanned and

reproduced below for ease and convenience:-

3 of 5
30. CRI WP-3975-26 & ST-8586-26.odt

5. Original demand draft is handed over to Respondent No. 2

through his Advocate in the presence of the Court.

6. In view of the aforesaid order passed and the parties having

resolved the issue and lis, especially in view of the consent terms

which were filed at the time of granting anticipatory bail, Petitions are

allowed in terms of their respective prayer clauses which read thus:-

WRIT PETITION No. 3975 OF 2026:-

"(a) This Hon'ble Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under the
provisions of Article 226 of constitution of India r/w. Section 528 of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of The
Code of Criminal Procedure) may issue appropriate writ, order
and/or direction and quash and set aside the impugned First
Information Report No. 935/25 dated 27.12.2025 Kolsewadi Police
Station, Dist. - Thane including the Chargesheet No. 85 of 2026
dated 23.03.2026 and all other consequential proceedings qua the
present Petitioner arising out of Regular Criminal Case No. 231 of
2026 pending before Ld. 4th Jt. C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C, Kalyan;

WRIT PETITION NO. 8586 OF 2026:-

"A. Be pleased to allow present Application.
B. Quash and set aside C.R. No. 0935 of 2025 dated 27.12.2025
registered with Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan (East),
District Thane, for offences punishable under Sections 340(2),
336(3), 336(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, as against the present Applicants."
7. Since the parties have put the law into motion, determination

of Petitions shall be however subject to payment of costs by the

Petitioners . Hence, both the Petitions are allowed subject to payment

of costs of Rs. 25,000/- by the Petitioners to a charity namely A.K.

Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special School

4 of 5
30. CRI WP-3975-26 & ST-8586-26.odt

imparting education and training to the needs of 150 special children

in the field of Education (Classes for 6 to 18 years), early

intervention(upto 6 years) and vocational training (18 years above)

having its school address and building at A.K. Munshi Yojana Chowk,

3rd Panjarapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai – 400 004 [Contact Nos.

22425513 / 22423654] registered under the Society Registration Act,

XXI of 1980 under No. : 387/81 GBBSD and the Public Trust Act, XXIX

of 1950 under No. F-6809. RCI Reg. No. 0163 within a period of one

week from the date of uploading of this order as a condition for

allowing the present Petitions.

8. Needless to state that parties will abide by the rights and

obligations stated in the Consent Terms as an undertaking given to

this Court.

9. Liberty to apply in case of any difficulty.

10. Though the present Petitions are disposed of, same are kept for

compliance of this order on 10th September, 2026 under the caption

"for Compliance".

11. Petition Nos. 3975 of 2026 and (St) No. 8586 of 2026 are

allowed and disposed.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.27
20:22:52 +0530

5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…