Bombay High Court

OWAESH SHAKEEL ANSARI @ OWAIS SHAKEEL ANSARIversusANAND DHANRAJ TANTARPALE AND ANR

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The application is allowed; the criminal proceedings are quashed and the applicant is ordered to pay costs.

Summary

The applicant, Owaesh Shakeel Ansari, was charged in a road‑rage incident under IPC sections 353, 332, 504 and 323. The parties later reconciled and filed a consent affidavit seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act) to dismiss cases where continuation would be an abuse of process, citing the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The Court held that, since the dispute was private, the offences were not heinous, and the parties had settled, the proceedings could be quashed, but costs should be imposed on the applicant to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the application was allowed, the Sessions case was set aside, and the applicant was ordered to pay Rs.10,000 to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a private dispute can be quashed by consent under Section 482 CRPC/Section 528 BNSS.
Whether the offences (IPC 353, 332, 504, 323) are of a nature that permits quashing despite being non‑compoundable.
Whether the court may impose costs on the applicant in a consent‑quashing petition.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 332, 353, 504

Subjects

consent quashing
Section 482 CRPC
Section 528 BNSS
costs in criminal proceedings
road rage
settlement of private dispute
non‑heinous offences

Judgment

94.APL.1260.2026.doc

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1260 OF 2026

Owaesh Shakeel Ansari @ Owais Shakeel Ansari .. Applicant
Versus
Anand Dhanraj Tantarpale and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Shailesh Kantharia, Advocate for Applicant.
 Ms. Harshada Morey, Advocate for Respondent No.1
 Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kantharia, learned Advocate for Applicant and

Ms. Morey, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Nakhwa,

learned APP for Respondent No.2 - State.

2. The parties have reconciled their disputes which have

emanated from a road rage incident which had occurred and charge

being framed for causing hurt and the Consent Affidavit of the

Complainant dated 01.07.2026 is placed before me. I have perused the

same. He is present in Court. I have interacted with him.

3. 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

1 of 5
94.APL.1260.2026.doc

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.

4. 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.

5. In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute
1 1992 AIR 604

2 of 5
94.APL.1260.2026.doc

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 cosidered by Court which can impose

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

by “consent quashing”.

6. 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

3 of 5
94.APL.1260.2026.doc

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.

7. 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.

8. 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

4 of 5
94.APL.1260.2026.doc

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

Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to High Court

Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai bearing Account No.

000120110001337 in Bank of India, Mumbai (Main Branch) [IFSC

Code : BKID0000001].

9. I have considered the said Affidavit and of the opinion that

the present Application deserves to be allowed to put an end to the

issue and allow the parties to carry on with their lives. The Application

stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:-

“(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
proceedings being Sessions Case No.478 of 2023 pending before
the Learned City Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, 15th Court,
Dindoshi, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No.862 of 2022 registered
with Bangur Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 353, 332, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on
such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper.”

10. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 11th September 2026.

11. Criminal Application is disposed.

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

Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.31
18:58:28 +0530

5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…