Bombay High Court
HARSHAD SUNIL PATANKAR AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR and the related Sessions case, subject to the applicants paying costs of Rs 10,000.
Summary
The complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging assault while incarcerated, but after his release both he and the accused applicants, who are friends, submitted a consent affidavit stating that the alleged offence never occurred. The applicants, still in jail, sought consent quashing of the FIR under the inherent powers of the High Court. The Court examined Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 528 of the BNSS, relying on the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing FIRs. It held that, given the absence of any prima facie case and the parties’ settlement, the FIR and the related Sessions case could be quashed. However, to deter misuse of criminal law, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the applicants to be paid to a charitable trust.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed by consent under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CRPC/Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether costs may be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing of criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- BNSS, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 — s. 7
- Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. XXIX
- Society Registration Act, 1980 — s. XXI
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- costs imposition
- abuse of process
- settlement of criminal matters
- public resources
Judgment
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1150 OF 2026
Harshad Sunil Patankar And Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chetan S. Damre a/w. Mr. Omkar S. Banbe, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vishwatej Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Damre, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Jadhav, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. The Complaint is filed by the Complainant about an assault
on him while he was in prison. The Complaint is filed after he was
released from jail. The Applicants are concerned, they are still in jail.
However, the Complainant has filed his Consent Affidavit dated
24.06.2026 for consent quashing which is appended at page No.31 of
the paper book. The Consent Affidavit is affirmed before Registrar of
this Court.
3. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the
request made by the parties for consent quashing because it is stated in
1 of 6
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
the Affidavit that the said offense has never ever taken place. The
Applicants and the Complainant are good friends.
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
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
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 6
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
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
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
3 of 6
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
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.
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
4 of 6
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
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 Applicant for his actions resulting in
the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.
Hence, Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- 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, 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 through his learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid
costs amount to the charity.
10. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves
5 of 6
160.APL.1150.2026.doc
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 clause ‘a’
which read thus:-
“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR bearing C.R. No.
0369/2026 registered for offence punishable u/s 109, 61(2),
318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 340(2), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 &
also u/s sec.7 of Criminal Amendment Act, 1932 registered by
the Respondent no. 2 herein (Org. Complainant) on 16 h June,
2026 with the Nashik-Road Police Station, Nashik City. Dist.
Nashik.”
11. In addition thereto Sessions Case No.146 of 2026 in
C.R.No.369 of 2026 which has been registered subsequently pending
before Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road is also quashed and set
aside.
12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 23rd October 2026.
13. Advocate in Application for Applicants shall remain present
and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date
for 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.
14. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
6 of 6
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:56:36 +0530
Checking your session…