Bombay High Court

VINOD KUMAR NIHALCHAND PARMAR AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings and ordered the applicants to pay costs of Rs.15,000 to a charitable organization.

Summary

The applicants filed a criminal application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of FIR C.R. No.4 of 2026 that alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant had paid the disputed dues and filed a consent affidavit, indicating the dispute was essentially civil. Relying on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing proceedings. It held that, given the settlement and lack of prima facie case, the FIR could be quashed, but imposed costs of Rs.15,000 on the applicants to deter misuse of criminal law. The costs were directed to be paid to a charitable NGO, and the application was allowed and disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B r/w 34 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CRPC on the basis of settlement and lack of prima facie case.
Whether costs may be imposed on parties in a consent quashing petition to deter abuse of process.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 34, 406, 409, 420

Subjects

criminal procedure
quash of FIR
Section 528 BNSS
Section 482 CRPC
consent quashing
costs order
settlement
IPC offences
abuse of process

Judgment

95.APL.1286.2026.doc

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1286 OF 2026

Vinod Kumar Nihalchand Parmar and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. M. K. Kocharekar, Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
 Ms. Monika Kale, Advocate i/by Kartikeya & Associates for
Respondent No.2.
 WPSI – Chavan, Cuffe Parade Police Station (Pairavi).

...................

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

1. Heard Mr. Kocharekar, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Kale,

learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. This Application is filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with C.R. No.4 of 2026

dated 06.01.2026 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The lis emanates from a Complaint of cheating with regard

to the unpaid dues. The First Informant - Complainant is appearing

through Video Conferencing and identified by his Advocate. The dues

1 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

have now been paid and Consent Affidavit of the First Informant -

Complainant dated 14.08.2026 is filed before me today. I have

perused it and taken the same on record.

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 furthered asserted that power under Section 482 is an

acknowledgment of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers
1 1992 AIR 604

2 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

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

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”.

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

3 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

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.

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

4 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

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 complaint 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.15,000/- to a

charity / charitable organization Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya

Sanstha. All Applicants are present in Court and through their learned

Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

10. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya

Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at

the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment,

sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized

women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime

care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by

livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in

rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care

access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at

present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete

5 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual

disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha

for payment of costs are as under:-

Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra

Account Number: 60434381304

IFSC Code: MAHB0002075

MICR Code: 423014102

Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.

Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,

Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga

Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,

Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.

11. In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to

be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so

allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned proceeding being C.R. No. 4 of 2026 dated 06.01.2026
u/s 406, 409, 420, 120-B r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code registered
with Cuffe Parade Police Station;

12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 11th September 2026.

13. Advocate in the Application for Applicants shall remain

present and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable

6 of 7
95.APL.1286.2026.doc

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 Applicants.

14. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.

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

Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.01
19:54:08 +0530

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…