APPLN/4191/2025 of MOHAMMAD YUSUF SAJJAD KHAN Vs SANJIV JAGANNATH JADHAV AND ANOTHER on 12 October 2026

1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the parties jointly submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have decided to resolve the issue that has been raised in the proceedings before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2024.

3. I have perused the terms of settlement, wherein the settlement has come into effect between the parties in connection with Execution Petition No. 144 of 2026. The settlement term clearly reflects that the original complainant has received an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the applicant and the remaining Tandale 2026:BHC-AUG:48947

29-APPLN-4191-2025 amount aggregating to Rs.33,55,000/- has also been paid to the complainant. In pursuance of this settlement, the parties have agreed to approach this Court by way of quashing of the said proceedings along with the impugned orders passed therein. The documentation that was required to be performed are also completed and as on date, there is no obligation on the either of the party to perform any of the terms that are mentioned in the terms of settlement dated 14.11.2025. Both the learned advocates agree that the settlement terms have been complied with.

4. Taking into consideration that the amicable settlement has taken place between the parties and both the parties have settled the dispute in terms of the settlement arrived between them by a settlement deed dated 14.11.2025, I am inclined to exercise my inherent jurisdiction and quash the entire proceedings.

5. The Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

6. Criminal Application No. 4522 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale