FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN PROP. M/S. HAVELI ENTERPRISES AND ANRversusTHE UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND DAMAN AND DIU

                                                                        163.APL.1599.2026+.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1599 OF 2026

              Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan Prop. M/S.
              Haveli Enterprises And Anr.                   .. Applicants
                         Versus
              The Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli
              And Daman And Diu                             .. Respondent

                                         WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2026

              Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan Prop. M/S.
              Haveli Enterprises And Anr.                       .. Applicants
                         Versus
              The Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar Haveli
              And Daman And Diu                                 .. Respondent
                                           ....................
               Ms. Varsha Palav a/w. Mr. Ajinkya Palav and Mr. Viraj Shelatkar,
                 Advocates for Applicants in Application No.1599 of 2026.
               Mr. Ashwin Thorat a/w. Archismati Chandramore, Ms. Reeti
                Upadhyay for Respondent No.1.
               Ms. Savina Bangera, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               PSI – Satish Chavan, Matunga Police Station.
                                           ...................

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : OCTOBER 08, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.       Heard    Ms.   Palav,     learned         Advocate   for   Applicants

              Application No.1599 of 2026; Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for

              Respondent No.1 and Ms. Bangera, learned APP for Respondent No.2.


              2.       Criminal Application No.1599 of 2026 is only determined by

              this order. The Complainant who is arrayed as Respondent No.2 has

              filed an affidavit for consent quashing dated 11.09.2026. Complainant

                                                                                       1 of 7
                                                     163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


would persuade the Court to accept the same. The parties have

reconciled their disputes and have settled it amongst themselves and

he has no grievance whatsoever if First Information Report No. 186 of

2017, consequential charge-sheet No.74 of 2018 and consequential

Special Case (SC/ST) No.3 of 2018 pending before the Special Court

namely Sessions Court of Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa is

quashed and set aside by the Court by consent quashing. Respondent

No.2 is present in Court and I have interacted with him with the able

assistance of his Advocates. He agrees that he has given his consent for

withdrawal of the criminal proceedings.


3.        Without delineating anything further on merits and the fact

that the pendency of the criminal proceedings will duly affect the

parties and their future prospects, I am inclined to accept the request

made for Consent quashing and allow the Application.


4.        Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any

Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands

incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the

language and intent of Section 482 of the CRPC, 1973 High Courts

invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with

malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding


                                                                    2 of 7
                                                         163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal

proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the

accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC

and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from

case to case.


5.           In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the

said judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court

has     further     asserted   that   power   under   Section   482    is   an

acknowledgment of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers

additional. It has held that even non compoundable offences can be

quashed where necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide

whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the

interest of justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder,

rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement

because they involve societal implication.


6.           In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute

or the lis between them is purely civil and commercial or matrimonial

and the offence is not heinous or does not impact the society at large,

the Court can consider such request. In such a case awarding costs for

putting the criminal law into motion on the act of the accused persons
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        3 of 7
                                                    163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


and thereafter both parties seeking quashing of proceedings by

consent, in my opinion, can be considered by Court which can impose

costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court

by “consent quashing”.


7.       For above levy of costs the legal principle rests on the logic

that criminal law cannot be used as a bargaining chip or a tool for

private settlements after draining the State and judicial resources. In

simple words, Courts cannot be used as a recovery mechanism to settle

scores and/or bring the parties into subjugation. I am of the firm

opinion that imposition of costs in consent quashing matters is

required to be levied for three main reasons viz., wastage of public

resources, consumption of valuable judicial time and for deterrence

against vexatious litigation. This is because after criminal machinery

is set into motion, the Police Department is forced to take cognizance,

conduct investigations, attend courts, deploy personnel, collect

evidence and draft chargesheets, all using public funds/ public

exchequer. Equally substantial judicial time of the Trial Courts and

Sessions Courts is wasted for handling a case, presentation of a case,

issuance of summons, scheduling of trial dates, appointment of

prosecutors and their fees, etc. and ultimately if consent quashing is

allowed such judicial time stands completely wasted, which could have

otherwise been used for genuine Trial Court matters/ litigation in one

way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                       163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


8.        Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs

the growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal

complaints (especially matrimonial or commercial disputes) simply to

force financial and legal settlements. In a given case made out on

merits of the matter, even the Complainant can be put to costs while

considering a quashing Petition purely on merits depending upon the

facts of each case before Court. In some strong circumstances, even the

State machinery can be put to costs if a purely civil dispute between

parties strongly emanating from the facts on record is registered as

criminal case and given the flavor of criminality. This Court is also

equally conscious about not imposing costs blindly or mechanically if a

particular party is not found to be remiss or at explicit fault for abusing

the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting the society

at large while considering consent quashing.


9.        Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that the Applicants for their actions resulting

in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.

Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- towards the

Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres,

vocational training centres and which also runs a Special School called



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                         163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, imparting education and training

to the needs of 150 special children in the field of Education (Classes

for 6 to 18 years), early intervention (upto 6 years) and vocational

training (18 years above) having its school address and building at A.K.

Munshi Yojana Chowk, 3rd Panjarapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai – 400

004 [Contact Nos. 22425513 / 22423654] registered under the Society

Registration Act, XXI of 1980 under No. : 387/81 GBBSD and the

Public Trust Act, XXIX of 1950 under No. F-6809. RCI Reg. No. 0163

within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

Applicants are present in Court and through their learned Advocates

agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


10.       In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves

to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. At

the request of parties, it is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a-1’

which reads thus:-


         “a-1)By an appropriate Writ, Order or direction of this Hon'ble Court,
               the charge-sheet No. 74 of 2018 filed by the Respondent No. 1
               and proceeding of Special Case (SC-ST) No. 3 of 2018, pending
               before the learned Special Court, (learned Sessions Judge) Dadra
               & Nagar Haveli, at Silvasa be quashed and set aside. ”


11.       List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 23rd October 2026.


12.       Advocate in Application for Applicants shall remain present

and show compliance on behalf of Applicant on the returnable date for

                                                                         6 of 7
                                                                                        163.APL.1599.2026+.doc


                          compliance. If learned Advocate for Applicants not remain present and

                          there is non-compliance of this order, Court will pass appropriate order

                          for recall of this order, which shall be noted by the Applicants/parties

                          to Application.


                          13.                  Criminal Application No.1602 of 2026 on 29th October 2026.

                          To be listed under the caption ‘First on Board’.


                          14.                  Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.



H. H. SAWANT                                                                [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]



                            Digitally signed
               HARSHADA by HARSHADA
                        HANUMANT
               HANUMANT SAWANT
               SAWANT   Date: 2026.10.10
                            12:57:44 +0530




                                                                                                       7 of 7