Bombay High Court
HITESH RAMESH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court allowed the quash of the FIR and related criminal proceedings in all three applications, subject to the payment of costs.
Summary
The petitioners filed three criminal applications under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of FIR No. 812/2025 and related proceedings for offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, Pranam Harish Mehta, consented to the quash, stating that the dispute was purely contractual and had been settled out of court. The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (mirrored in Section 528 BNSS) and applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines on when FIRs may be quashed. It held that, as the matter involved a non‑heinous commercial dispute, the applications could be allowed, but imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on each applicant to be paid to a charitable institution. Consequently, all three applications were allowed, costs were imposed, and the matters were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on the parties' consent under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CRPC.
- Whether the offences alleged (under Sections 316(5), 318(4) r/w 3(5) BNS) are non‑heinous and thus amenable to quash.
- Whether costs may be levied on the applicants in a consent‑quashing petition.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act
- Society Registration Act
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CRPC
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of commercial dispute
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
- non‑heinous offence
Judgment
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 2026
Hitesh Ramesh Gandhi .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1360 OF 2025
Anil Kumar Bherulal Jagetiya .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
(93) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2026
Ladulal Harakchand Kanther and Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shreyansh R. Mithare a/w. Mr. Avinash S. Kori a/w. Mr.
Shobhit Desai a/w. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates for Applicants in
in Criminal Application Nos.1143 of 2026 and 1360 of 2025 .
Mr. Saurabh Mittal, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application
No.1211 of 2026.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State in Criminal
Application Nos.1143 of 2026 and 1360 of 2025.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State in Criminal
Application No.1211 of 2026.
Mr. Akash Sabale a/w Aditya Talpade i/b T & K Law Chambers
Advocates for Respondent No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mithare, learned Advocates for Applicants in
Criminal Application Nos.1143 of 2026 and 1360 of 2025; Mr. Mittal,
1 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
learned Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No.1211 of
2026; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State in Criminal
Application Nos.1143 of 2026 and 1360 of 2025; Ms. Newton, learned
APP for Respondent – State in Criminal Application No.1211 of 2026
and Mr. Sabale, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. All 3 Criminal Applications are filed under Section 528 of
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with C.R.
No.812 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 registered with L. T. Marg Police
Station for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) r/w
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Applicants are arraigned as
Accused in the offences.
3. Parties have reconciled their disputes and claims which
pertain to exchange of money and transactions related to share trading
account during the COVID period. The Affidavits of consent dated
30.06.2026 and 24.07.2026 of the Complainant - Pranam Harish
Mehta, who is present in Court gives his consent to quash all
proceedings as stated in paragraph No.5 and 7 thereof. It also states
that he has no surviving grievances, claims and disputes whatsoever
against accused persons and the same have been amicably resolved
and settled out of Court by the parties.
4. I have no reason to disbelieve what Mr. Mehta submits, since
he is present before the Court and confirms his consent affidavit. The
2 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
Applicants are also present before the Court. They are duly
represented by Advocates - Mr. Mithare and Mr. Mittal. In my opinion,
there can be no impediment to allow the present Applications since the
lis between them emanates purely out of a contractual issue and is now
resolved finally by them.
5. Hence common order is passed in all the 3 applications
before me.
6. 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
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.
3 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
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 furthered 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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
4 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
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
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
5 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
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.
11. 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, all 3 Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- each to
to A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special
School 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
6 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
weeks from today. All Applicants are present in Court and through
their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the
charity as directed hereinabove.
12. In view of the above, all 3 Applications deserve to be allowed
subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. They are so
allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ in all 3 Applications which reads
thus:-
“In Criminal Application No.1143 of 2026:-
(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.812/2025 registered with L.T. Marg Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable u/s. 316(5), 318(4)
r/w 3(5) of BNS against Applicant on such terms and conditions
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
In Criminal Application No.1360 of 2025:-
(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.812/2025 registered u/s. 316(5), 318(4)
r/w 3(5) of BNS with L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai
alongwith cognizance order dated 04/11/2025 passed by Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, 28 th Court Esplanade Mumbai and
subsequent criminal proceedings of C.C. No. 1116/PW/2025
pending on the files of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, 28 th
Court Esplanade Mumbai on such terms and conditions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
In Criminal Application No.1211 of 2026:-
(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.812/2025 registered u/s. 316(5), 318(4)
r/w 3(5) of BNS with L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai
alongwith chargesheet and cognizance order dated 04/11/2025
passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, 28 th Court
Esplanade Mumbai and subsequent criminal proceedings of C.C.
No. 1116/PW/2025 pending in the file of Ld. Judicial Magistrate
First Class, 28th Court Esplanade Mumbai on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;”
13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of this order on 11th
September 2026.
7 of 8
89.APL.1143.2026+93.APL.1211.2026.doc
14. Advocates for Applicants in all 3 Applications shall remain
present and show compliance on behalf of all Applicants on the
returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 all Applications.
15. All 3 Criminal Application Nos.1143 of 2026; 1360 of 2026
and 1211 of 2026 are allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.02
11:04:32 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…