Bombay High Court
ANIRUDH UMESH PARAB AND 10 ORS.versusSTATE OF GOA THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIRs and chargesheets, allowing the petitions, on the ground of a genuine consensual settlement and non‑heinous nature of the offences.
Summary
The petitioners, members of two rival Mahajan groups, filed cross‑petitions seeking the quash of FIRs No. 39/2024 and 40/2024 and the related chargesheets in criminal cases IPC/104/2025 and IPC/102/2025, arising from a dispute over a religious function. Both groups entered into a mutual settlement, executed consent terms stating the dispute was resolved without coercion, and jointly requested the court to set aside the criminal proceedings. The High Court examined whether, under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a court may quash FIRs and chargesheets on the basis of a consensual settlement for non‑heinous offences. Finding the settlement genuine and the offences not grave, the Court allowed the petitions, quashing the FIRs and chargesheets, and ordered the parties to pay a joint cost of Rs 2,50,000. The relief is conditional upon payment of the stipulated costs.
Issues considered
- Whether FIRs and chargesheets can be quashed on the basis of a consensual settlement between the parties under Article 226 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the court may impose costs on the parties as a condition for the relief.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 324, 34, 352, 417, 427, 504, 506(ii)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- consent settlement
- religious dispute
- criminal procedure
- Section 528
- Article 226
- costs
- High Court of Bombay at Goa
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1862 Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2026
SAKHARAM PARAB & 6 OTHERS … PETITIONERS
~ VERSUS ~
THE STATE OF GOA & 2 OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioners Mr. Ryan Menezes with Ms. M. Silva
for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.
Swati Kamat Wagh
for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Ravi Gawas
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2026
ANIRUDH U. PARAB & 10 OTHERS … PETITIONERS
~ VERSUS ~
THE STATE OF GOA & 2 OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
Page 1 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
A PPEARANCES :
for the Petitioners Mr. Ravi Gawas
for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.
Preetam Talaulikar
for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Ryan Menezes with Ms. M. Silva
CORAM : AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.
DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties
2. The above-captioned cross-petitions have been filed by the respective
parties against each other, seeking quashing of FIRs Nos. 39/2024 and
40/2024 and chargesheets in Criminal Case Nos. IPC/104/2025 and
IPC/102/2025. The FIRs came to be registered at Pernem Police
Station, Goa, against the Petitioners and the 3rd Respondent for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 352, 417, 427, 504 and
506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently,
after investigation, the Prosecution has filed chargesheets, and criminal
cases are pending before the Trial Court, after the Trial Court has taken
cognizance in the matters.
Page 2 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
3. It is submitted that, unfortunately, the incident in question arose out
of a dispute between the Petitioners and the private Respondents, who
represent two rival groups of Mahajans of Shri Devi Sateri Ravalnath
Panchayatan Devasthan, situated at Virnoda, Pernem, Goa. It is
submitted that the dispute arose due to misunderstanding and
miscommunication between the Petitioners and the private
Respondents in relation to a religious function in which both parties
were involved. However, the Petitioners and the private Respondents,
upon realising that the conflict arose due to misunderstanding and
miscommunication between the parties, have amicably resolved the
dispute arising out of religious functions and ceremonies to be
performed by the Petitioners and the private Respondents.
4. Accordingly, today, a joint request is made by the Petitioners and the
private Respondents that the FIRs and chargesheets be quashed by
consent. The parties have executed consent terms, inter alia, stating that
they have amicably settled the dispute and are not interested in
litigating the pending criminal cases against each other. The consent
terms mention that the parties have settled the dispute voluntarily, on
Page 3 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
their own free will and without any coercion, undue influence, threat
or pressure of any nature.
5. The consent terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for the purpose
of identification.
6. I have perused the statements made in the consent terms dated
10.09.2026 executed by the Petitioners and the private Respondents.
Considering the fact that the offences committed by the Petitioners
and the private Respondents are not heinous and pertain to religious
functions and ceremonies to be performed by the parties, which
dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties, I am inclined to
allow both the aforesaid Petitions in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Writ Petition No. 398 of 2026 is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read as follows:
“a. That by any appropriate writ, order, and/or direction under
Article 226 of our Constitution and/or Section 528 of of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Hon. Court may be pleased
Page 4 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
to quash and set aside First Information Report No. 39/2024 of
the Pernem Police Station, with all legal effects and consequences.
b. That by any appropriate writ, order, and/or direction under
Article 226 of our Constitution and/or Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Hon. Court may
be pleased to quash and set aside the investigation into First
Information Report No. 39/2024 of the Pernem Police Station,
and the Chargesheet/Final Report No. 51/2025 dated
07/10/2025, filed vide Criminal Case No. IPC/104/2025
before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, with all legal
effects and consequences.”
8. Criminal Writ Petition No. 292 of 2026 is also allowed in terms of
prayer clause (A), which reads as follows:
“(A) Quash and set aside the Chargesheet No. 46/2025 dated
06/09/2025 filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Sections 323,
324, 352, 427, 504, 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC.”
Page 5 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
9. In view thereof, the FIRs Nos. 39/2024 and 40/2024 and chargesheets
in Criminal Case Nos. IPC/104/2025 and IPC/102/2025 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem are quashed and set
aside.
10. However, the Petitioners and the private Respondents shall jointly pay
a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only)
towards costs on or before 24.09.2026 to the High Court of Bombay
at Goa Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited on the
following Bank Account:-
Account No.:- 42838649927
Bank:- State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Panaji, Goa
IFSC Code:- SBIN0008851
11. It is clarified that the relief granted in the Petitions will be operative
only after payment of costs as stated above.
12. Both the Criminal Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
Page 6 of 7
Sept. 11, 2026
Sakharam S. Parab & 6 Ors.
Anirudh U. Parab & 10 Ors.
Vs.
State & 2 Ors.
__________________________________________________
903 WPCR Nos. 398 & 292 of 2026
13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or
email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ]
Page 7 of 7
Signed by: VAIGANKAR ESHA Sept. 11, 2026
SAINATH
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 19/09/2026 11:56:08
Checking your session…