Dismissed¶30

Sreejit Rameshan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2026WP/1610/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR and chargesheet by consent refused; suppression of non-disclosed framing of charge (R.C.C. No. 567 of 2023, JMFC Vadgaon Maval, Pune, July 2025); offences under Sections 383, 384, 385, 379, 34 read with Section 120B IPC; extortion alleged by the State; genuineness of inter-party settlement doubted; objection by Respondent No. 1; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs. Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., decided 9 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR and the material collected upon its registration make out the ingredients of the offences charged under Sections 383, 384, 385, 379 and 34 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the Petitioners. ¶22

Sreejit Rameshan and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and chargesheet by consent of the parties should be entertained, given the Petitioners' non-disclosure of the framing of charge and Respondent No. 1's objection to consent-based quashing.

¶29

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners' non-disclosure of the framing of charge amounts to suppression, and the order framing the charge is not challenged by the Petitioners.

¶27

Key takeaways

The nature of the offences charged against the Petitioners is serious.ratio¶28
The apprehensions expressed by the learned APP, in the context of the settlement between the parties and the nature of the allegations, cannot be ruled out.ratio¶28
In view of the above, particularly the objection by Respondent No. 1 to the quashing of the criminal proceedings by consent, no indulgence is warranted to the Petitioners.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 1610 of 2026 (Sreejit Rameshan and Ors v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. Petition for quashing of the impugned FIR and chargesheet 'by consent', not on merits, dismissed. The Court held that the impugned FIR and the material collected upon its registration make out the ingredients of the offences charged under Sections 383, 384, 385, 379 and 34 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, with sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioners; that the charge framed in R.C.C. No. 567 of 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon Maval, Pune (July 2025) was not disclosed in the petition — a non-disclosure amounting to suppression — and the framing order was unchallenged; that the offences are serious in nature and the State's apprehensions as to the genuineness of the parties' settlement, given the nature of the allegations, could not be ruled out; and that, with Respondent No. 1 objecting to quashing of the criminal proceedings by consent, no indulgence was warranted. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

17-WP-1610-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1610 OF 2026

¶4

Sreejit Rameshan And Ors … Petitioners

¶5

Versus.

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Respondents

¶7

SHARADA RANGNATH WAHULE

¶8

Digitally signed bySHARADA RANGNATH WAHULE Date: 2026.04.16 18:35:44 +0530

¶9

Mr. Adhik Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Imran Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the State. PSI Mr. Amar Raut, Crime Branch, Pimpri Chinchwad, is present.

¶10

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 9^th April 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard, Mr. Adhik Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State.

¶13

Mrs Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigation Officer, states that the charge in R.C.C. No. 567 of 2023 was framed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, on 28^th July, 2025. She submits that the Petitioners have willfully suppressed the said vital fact in this petition.

¶14

Upon a query to Mr. Adhik Kadam, Advocate for the Petitioners, regarding the averment in respect of the framing of the charge in the

Sharada

17-WP-1610-2026.doc

memo of Petition, he answered in the negative.

¶19

Mr. Adhik Kadam states that the Petitioners, by this petition, have approached this Court for the quashing of the impugned FIR and the chargesheet by consent, not on the merits of the case. He submits that the complainant is agreeable to give no objection to the quashing.

¶20

Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State, submits that the offence charged against the Petitioners is a serious offence, including extortion. She refers to the impugned FIR and states that a clear case of extortion is made out against the Petitioners. She raises apprehensions about the genuineness of the purported settlement between the parties in such a serious offence. She strongly objects to entertaining this petition and to the quashing of the impugned FIR by consent of the parties.

¶21

6. Perused records.

¶22

The impugned FIR and the material collected upon its registration, in unequivocal terms, refer to the acts of the Petitioners and make out the ingredients to attract the offences charged against them under Sections 383, 384, 385, 379, and 34, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. There is sufficient material on record to

Sharada

17-WP-1610-2026.doc

proceed against the Petitioners.

¶27

Coupled with the said fact, charge was framed against the Petitioner in July 2025, which the Petitioners have conveniently failed to disclose. The non-disclosure of the said fact would, in the present case, amount to suppression. The order framing the charge is not challenged by the Petitioners.

¶28

The nature of the offences charged against the Petitioners is serious. Apprehensions expressed by Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, in the context of the settlement between the parties in the facts and circumstances of this case, more so from the nature of the allegations, cannot be ruled out.

¶29

In view of the above, particularly the objection by Respondent No. 1 to the quashing of the criminal proceedings by consent, I find that no indulgence is warranted to the Petitioners.

¶30

This Petition is therefore dismissed. In the facts and

¶31

circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶33

¶34

Sharada

Sreejit Rameshan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejit Rameshan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harnish Chanderlal Paraswani and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raj Chandrakant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kapil Arvind Pathak vs State of Maharashtra

Anirvan Sibabrata Mukherjee vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradip Chintaman Bachhav vs State of Maharashtra

Rahul Suresh Rohra vs State of Maharashtra