Smt. Shilpa Sushant Phadnis & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks leave to implead the accused, Chabubai Pilaji Kunjir, as a Petitioner in the array of the Petitioners. The learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 – State and the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 have given no objection and consented to the same.

In view of the above, leave, as prayed for, is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State, and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

The Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused in First Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) bearing C.R. No.314 of 2026, registered on 8^th July 2026 with Hatkanangale Police Station, District Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 417 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) have preferred the present Petition seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties out of Court. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 has filed a Consent Affidavit dated 22.09.2026 and consented to quash the F.I.R. and any proceedings filed/arising pursuant to the said F.I.R. The same is taken on record and marked “X”. They also submitted that the parties have filed a Memorandum of Settlement before this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 740 of 2026. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has also tendered Petitioner No.2’s Affidavit dated 22^nd September, 2026, along with annexures. The same is taken on record and marked “X-1”.

Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and Respondent No.2 are present before the Court and are identified by their respective learned Advocates. Respondent No.2 admits the contents of the Consent Affidavit and submits that he has no grievance against the Petitioners. He further submits that he has no objection to quashing the F.I.R. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 also submit that the dispute between them and Respondent No.2 has been amicably settled and that Respondent No.2 has no grievance remaining against them. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, Respondent No.2 has consented to the quashing of the F.I.R.

Respondent No.2 lodged a report against the Petitioners and one Chabubai Pilaji Kumbhar, alleging that they, in collusion with each other, had diverted the funds collected for the expansion and renovation of Hridaya Multispeciality Hospital and Research Centre Private Limited to other companies and thereby cheated and committed criminal breach of trust of him. Pursuant to the said report, an offence was registered against the Petitioners, and Chabubai Pilaji Kumbhar, vide C.R. No.314 of 2026 on 8^th July, 2026. Pursuant to the said F.I.R., investigation is ongoing.

During pendency of the investigation, the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 – original complainant, has been amicably settled. As per the settlement, the Petitioners have paid Rs. 3,25,00,000/-(Rupees Three Crore Twenty-Five Lakhs only) to Respondent No.2, which he acknowledges. Respondent No.2, therefore, submits that he has no grievance remaining against the Petitioners and, as such, has consented to the quashing of the F.I.R. and any proceedings filed pursuant to the said F.I.R.

It is further apparent that the entire issue pertains to a dispute between private parties having no connection with the public at large. Moreover, the offence is neither heinous nor anti-social, and it arises out of commercial transactions.

Respondent No. 2 has filed an Affidavit giving his consent for quashing of the F.I.R. registered against the Petitioners vide C.R. No.314 of 2026. In the said Affidavit, Respondent No.2 has categorically averred that he is giving his consent voluntarily and of his own free will, without any pressure, force, coercion, and/or misrepresentation. He has further stated that he does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the Petitioners and has no objection to quashing of the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners, on instructions, suo motu and voluntarily submits that the Petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) with the Ad-hoc Committee of the Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench Bar Association (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), on 28^th September 2026, towards rotating the police machinery, as per the arguments advanced by the parties on 24^th September 2026. It is further submitted that, as per the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties before the coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No.740 of 2026, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each had earlier been deposited with the Ad-hoc Committee of the Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench Bar Association and with the Public Prosecutor's Office. The Petitioners have, therefore, deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,50,000/-on 28^th September 2026 with the Ad-hoc Committee, as undertaken in the initial submissions made on 24^th September 2026, to demonstrate their willingness to settle the matter amicably.

In view of the consent affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 and considering the fact that the dispute is purely between private parties and has no bearing on the public at large, the matter deserves to be considered accordingly. Moreover, the nature of the offence is neither heinous nor anti-social. Furthermore, as the dispute arises out of commercial transactions, and Respondent No.2 has no objection to quashing the F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, the same may be quashed and set aside. Thus, I am of the view that continuing the proceedings against the Petitioners would serve no useful purpose. The parties have amicably settled the dispute, and Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the proceedings against the Petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice.

In view of the above, in my view, this is a fit case for exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

In the result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c), which read thus;

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

The Petition is disposed of.