Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Usman Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. Ms. Shrinidhi Sonak, Counsel i/b Jugal Kanani, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2/original complainant. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court.

¶21

IO PSI Mr. Dhanraj Koli attached to Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai is present in the Court.

¶22

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 22^nd JANUARY 2026.

¶23

P.C. :

¶24

Heard Mr. Parth Zaveri, learned Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 227 of 2025, Mr. Mahendra Sandhyanshiv,

¶25

Page 1 of 4

¶26

906 & 38-WP-227-2025+.doc

¶27

Gitalaxmi

¶28

learned Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4267 of 2024, Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent and Ms. Shrinidhi Sonak, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶29

Mr. Parth Zaveri, Mr. Mahendra Sandhyanshiv and Ms. Shrinidhi Sonak, learned Advocates for the respective parties submit that both the Petitions arise out of the same First Information Report (i.e. FIR bearing No. 321 of 2023) and request for taking up both the Petitions together.

¶30

By these Petitions, Petitioners seek for quashing of the FIR No. 321 of 2023 registered with Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶31

Mr. Parth Zaveri, Mr. Mahendra Sandhyanshiv and Ms. Shrinidhi Sonak, learned Advocates for the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the impugned FIR was filed on account of a partnership dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. They submit that the parties have resolved their differences and Respondent No. 2 has No Objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings. They submit that the criminal proceedings filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners may not be continued and the same be quashed.

¶32

Petitioners are present and identified by their learned Advocates Mr. Parth Zaveri and Mr. Mahendra Sandhyanshiv. Respondent No. 2 in both the Petitions, is present in the Court and identified by his learned Advocate Ms. Shrinidhi Sonak. Ms. Page 2 of 4

¶33

906 & 38-WP-227-2025+.doc

¶34

Gitalaxmi

¶35

Shrinidhi Sonak tenders two Affidavits dated 06.11.2025 affirmed before the Notary Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Santacruz (East), Mumbai along with Exhibits-A & B. Said Affidavits dated 06.11.2025 are taken on record and marked as “ X Colly. ” in Writ Petition No. 227 of 2025 & “ X-1 Colly. ” in Writ Petition No. 4267 of 2024, for identification. Respondent No. 2 states that the Affidavits (X Colly. & X-1 Colly.) have been filed by him out of his own free will and without any pressure, force or coercion from any person. He submits that the contents of said Affidavits are as per his say. He submits that dispute between him and the Petitioners in both these Petitions, is resolved. He submits that he has No Objection for quashing of the FIR by consent.

¶36

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent submits that in view of the statements made today by Respondent No. 2 before this Court and the statements made in his respective Affidavits dated 06.11.2025 (X Colly. & X-1 Colly.), no purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings and as such, she submits that the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet, can be quashed.

¶37

Considering the above circumstances, the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement arrived between the parties, the statements made on oath by Respondent No. 2 (Affidavits dated 06.11.2025 at X Colly. & X-1 Colly.) and having regards to the judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v/s. The State of Punjab and Another¹ , Narinder Singh and Others v/s. State of Punjab and Another² and

¶38

(2012)10 Supreme Court Cases 303.

¶39

(2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466.

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

906 & 38-WP-227-2025+.doc

¶42

Gitalaxmi

¶43

Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.³ , there is no impediment in allowing these Petitions.

¶44

In view of the above, both these Petitions are allowed. Consequently, FIR in both the Petitions bearing No. 321 of 2023 dated 25.04.2023 registered with Dharavi Police Station, Mumbai, is quashed. Criminal proceedings against the Petitioners arising out of the impugned FIR are closed.

¶45

Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 227 of 2025 & 4267 of 2025 are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]

¶47

GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR

¶48

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.02.03 20:47:26 +0530

¶49

3 (2017) 9 SCC 641.

¶50

Page 4 of 4

Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Usman Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Usman Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Lalasaheb Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Panchlal Kalluram Jaiswal and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Asitesh Chattopadhyay and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yusuf Khan Sher Khan and Ors. vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.

Mohammed Awais Mohammed Salim Ansari vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhuleshwar Steel and Alloys Pvt.Ltd vs the State of Marharashtra and Anr.