Janardhan Vitthal Chandane and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2026APL/79/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement/compromise between parties; consent quashing before Bombay High Court; Criminal Application Nos. 79 and 90 of 2026; FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024, MRA Marg Police Station; complainant Respondent No. 2 Rupesh Kumar Bhaidas Ahire's notarised affidavits 'X-1' and 'X-2' confirming free-will settlement and no objection; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; order dated 19 January 2026; applications allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Applications allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024 registered at MRA Marg Police Station quashed; no order as to costs. ¶¶47

Janardhan Vitthal Chandane and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Criminal Applications allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024 registered at MRA Marg Police Station quashed; no order as to costs.

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024, both registered at MRA Marg Police Station and impugned in Criminal Applications Nos. 79 and 90 of 2026, can be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 and his no objection to quashing.

¶¶42

Court's answer

Both Criminal Applications (Nos. 79 and 90 of 2026) are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., quashing of the impugned FIRs.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

Both FIRs impugned in the applications — FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024, registered at MRA Marg Police Station — are quashed.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

Quashing was granted considering Respondent No. 2's statements in affidavits 'X-1' and 'X-2', the nature of the dispute between the parties, his no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings, and with regard to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Application Nos. 79 and 90 of 2026; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; order dated 19th January, 2026): Both criminal applications seeking quashing of FIR No. 43 of 2025 and FIR No. 0198 of 2024, registered at MRA Marg Police Station, were allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), consequentially quashing both FIRs. The Applicants (Janardhan Vitthal Chandane & Ors.) and Respondent No. 2 (Rupesh Kumar Bhaidas Ahire), the complainant, stated the dispute had been amicably settled. Respondent No. 2, personally present and identified, confirmed sworn affidavits ('X-1' dated 8th January, 2026 and 'X-2' dated 16th January, 2026, affirmed before Notaries Aparna Vhatkar and Bidhu Panicker respectively) that their contents were explained to him in Marathi, that they were filed out of his own free will without pressure or coercion, and that he had no objection to quashing of both FIRs. The learned APP submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. Quashing was granted with regard to the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶1

60-APL-79-2026 (i).docx

¶2

GAYATRI Digitally signed byGAYATRI RAJENDRASHIMPI RAJENDRA SHIMPIDate: 2026.02.1721:04:04 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2026

¶6

Janardhan Vitthal Chandane & Ors. … Applicants V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2026

¶10

Janardhan Vitthal Chandane & Anr. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w Mr. Suraj M. i/b Mr. Prashant Raul, Advocates for Applicants in both Applications.

¶12

Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in both Applications.

¶13

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.

¶14

Mr. S. G. Yadav – PSI, (Pairavi Officer), MRA Marg, Police Station.

¶15

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

¶16

DATE : 19^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

¶19

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 16^th February, 2026.

¶20

Gayatri shimpi

¶21

60-APL-79-2026 (i).docx

¶22

Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026 is not on board. Upon mentioning by Mr. Sanjeev Kadam and by consent of Mr. Sidheshwar Birder and Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP, taken on board. Advocates for the parties submit that the issues involved in both Applications are similar, as such they request for disposal of the same by a common order.

¶23

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for

¶24

Applicants in both the Applications, submits that the subject matter of Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026 is the FIR bearing No. 0198 of 2024 registered before MRA Marg Police Station, whereas the subject matter of Criminal Application No. 79 of 2026 is the FIR bearing No. 43 of 2025 registered with MRA Marg Police Station. He submits that Applicants in both the Applications are present in Court, he identifies the Applicants.

¶25

Respondent No. 2 in both the Applications is present

¶26

along with his Advocate Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar. He tenders a

¶27

photostat copy of the Identity Card of Respondent No. 2, same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶28

¶29

Gayatri shimpi

¶30

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 16^th February, 2026.

¶31

60-APL-79-2026 (i).docx

¶32

Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar tenders affidavit dated 8^th

¶33

January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before Notary Aparna Vhatkar, in Criminal Application No. 79 of 2026, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. He tenders affidavit dated 16^th January, 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No.2 before Notary Bidhu Panicker, in Criminal Application No. 90 of 2026, same is taken on record and marked as ‘X-2’ for identification.

¶34

Respondent No. 2 (Rupesh Kumar Bhaidas Ahire) states that contents of the affidavit at ‘X-1’ and ‘X-2’ are explained to him in Marathi by his Advocate Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar and upon the contents of the said affidavits being found to be as per his say, he has signed the affidavit before the Notary. He states that the affidavits at ‘X-1’ and ‘X-2’ are filed by him out of his own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. He states that the subject matter of both the FIR’s being amicably settled by him and the Applicants, he has no objection for quashing of both the FIRs which are the subject matter of these Applications.

¶35

¶36

Gayatri shimpi

¶37

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 16^th February, 2026.

¶38

60-APL-79-2026 (i).docx

¶39

Applicants in these Applications, who are present in Court, state that the dispute between them and the Respondent No. 2 is amicably resolved. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2, therefore, jointly submit that the criminal proceedings filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Applicants may not be continued and the same be quashed.

¶40

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State, submits that continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any purpose in view of the statements made by the Advocates for the parties before this Court. He on the basis of contents of the affidavit ‘X-1’ & ‘X-2’ submits that the impugned FIR in both the Applications can be quashed.

¶41

Considering the statements made by the Respondent

¶42

No.2 in the affidavits marked as ‘X-1’ & ‘X-2’, the nature of dispute between the parties, the no objection of the Respondent No. 2 to quash the criminal proceedings and having regards to the

¶43

¶44

Gayatri shimpi

¶45

This order has been modified by speaking to the minutes of the order dated 16^th February, 2026.

¶46

60-APL-79-2026 (i).docx

¶47

pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ,¹ and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.² both these Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, both the FIR’s impugned in these Applications bearing No. 43 of 2025 and bearing No. 0198 of 2024 registered at MRA Marg, Police Station, are quashed.

¶48

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶50