Bombay High Court
DIGAMBAR DNYANDEV PATILversusTHE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court allowed the application, quashed FIR No.517 of 2022, and imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Digambar Dnyandev Patil, was charged with cheating and forgery for allegedly submitting false documents to obtain a Rs.15 crore loan from South Indian Bank. The bank recovered Rs.1.7 crore before the FIR was filed and later settled the dispute on 31 Oct 2024 by receiving Rs.13.55 crore, issuing a no‑due certificate. Both parties jointly moved the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 528 of the BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR No.517 of 2022 on the basis of their settlement. The Court examined the power to quash under the Bhajan Lal guidelines and held that, where the offence is not heinous and the dispute is civil/commercial, consent quashing is permissible, but costs may be imposed to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the Court ordered the FIR to be quashed, directed the applicant to pay Rs.50,000 to a charitable trust, and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for cheating and forgery can be quashed by consent after the parties have settled the civil dispute.
- Whether the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 528 of the BNSS) extend to quashing non‑heinous offences in such circumstances.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the applicant in a consent‑quashing petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- consent settlement
- criminal costs
- cheating
- forgery
- loan fraud
- inherent powers of High Court
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
Judgment
13. APL-1095-25.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1095 OF 2025
Digambar Dnyandev Patil .. Applicant
Versus
The South Indian Bank Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane (through VC) a/w Mr. Yuvraj A. Tajane,
Advocates for Applicant
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
Mr. Pritesh Bansod (through VC) a/w D. Suvarna Rajesh i/by
Pritesn Bansod & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No. 1 -
Bank
Ms. Varshah Chavan, PI, EOW, Bkg 1, Unit 9, Mumbai
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Tajane, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Talhar,
learned APP for State and Mr. Bansod, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 - Bank.
2. The present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR No. 517 of 2022
(E.O.W.C.R. No. 93 of 2022) registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai City subsequently lodged as EOW-CR No. 93 of 2022 and the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Complainant in the present case is Respondent No. 1 - The
South Indian Bank, Andheri, Branch. The FIR is initially filed for
1 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
cheating and forgery committed by the Applicant and his wife, inter
alia, with regard to submitting false documents for seeking loan of Rs.
15 Crore from the Bank. Insofar as the return of the said amount is
concerned, prior to filing of the FIR, an amount of Rs. 1.7 Crore was
already returned back to the Bank.
4. Respondent Bank filed Criminal Application No. 223 of 2023
qua cancellation of bail given to the Applicant and permission to
withdraw the amounts which were already deposited pursuant to the
Consent Terms and order passed by this Court to that effect on
06.08.2024. Later on the entire dispute with regard to the amount
between Bank and present Applicant was settled under one time
settlement on 31.10.2024 for the sum of Rs. 13.55 Crore which is
received by the Bank as informed by Mr. Bansod. No-due certificate
issued to the Applicant is appended at page No. 48 of the Application.
5. Civil Court proceedings including the Revision Application filed
in this Court have all been withdrawn by the Bank in view of the
aforesaid settlement between the parties. Parties are therefore
persuading the Court to put an end to the lis between them and quash
the criminal proceedings qua the Applicant by consent.
6. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred
inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to
2 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
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
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.
7. 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,
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement
because they involve societal implication.
8. 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
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”.
9. 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
4 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
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 humongous
pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
10. 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
5 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting
the society at large while considering consent quashing.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
I am of the opinion that the Applicant for his actions resulting in the
Complainant Bank invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent due to their settlement, the
Applicant should pay costs. Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of
Rs.50,000/- 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 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, 3 rd 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.
12. Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocates
agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the above charity.
6 of 7
13. APL-1095-25.odt
13. In view of the above matter, the present Applicant deserves to be
allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) which read thus:-
“a) Rule be issued. Record and proceedings of the case be called for
and after examining, the legality, propriety and validity thereof
the FIR No.517 of 2022 ( E.O.W.C.R No.93 of 2022) lodged with
D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai City subsequently, lodged as
EOW-CR No.93 of 2022 and as well as charge framed on
15.02.2025 by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th
Court, Esplande, Mumbai in CC No. 749/PW/2022 and the
proceedings CC No. 749/PW/2022 pending before Ld. Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplande, Mumbai, qua the
Applicant be quashed and set aside."
14. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 1st October, 2026.
15. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show
compliance on the returnable date for compliance. If he does 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 Applicant.
16. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.05
13:22:30 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…