Bombay High Court
Anand Mithalal JainversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings by consent under Section 482/528 when the dispute is civil and the offence is not heinous, but may impose costs on the parties to prevent misuse of the criminal process.
Summary
The applicants sought consent quashing of criminal proceedings (C.C.No.66/PW/2020) arising from a complaint for octroi charges, after both parties settled the dispute and filed a consent affidavit. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS), allowed the interim application and ordered the quashing and stay of the proceedings. Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court noted that consent quashing is permissible when the offence is not heinous and the dispute is essentially civil. However, the Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a bargaining tool and therefore imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the applicants, payable to a charitable trust. The order directed compliance with the cost payment within two weeks and listed further procedural directions, after which the criminal application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings by consent under its inherent powers when the dispute is civil in nature.
- Whether costs can be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing to deter abuse of the criminal process.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act — s. XXIX of 1950
- Society Registration Act — s. XXI of 1980
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- abuse of process
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of civil dispute
- octroi charges
Judgment
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1315 OF 2025
Anand Mithalal Jain and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3422 OF 2026
....................
Mr. Dhananjay K. Bhosale, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Sachin Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
PSI – Sanjay Gaonkar, Mankhurd Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, Interim Application
is allowed. The amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith in
court. Re-verification stands dispensed with. The present order shall
apply to the newly inserted Applicants also.
3. The dispute has been amicably resolved with regard to
certain amounts which were received by the Applicant for payment of
Octroi charges. The consent affidavit of the Complainant is placed
before me dated 08.10.2026. I have perused the same.
4. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred
1 of 6
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
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
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
2 of 6
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
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
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
3 of 6
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
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
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.
4 of 6
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
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 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 are present in Court and 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
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 clauses ‘a’ and
‘b’ which read thus:-
5 of 6
151.APL.1315.2025+.doc
“(a) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.66/PW/2020 pending in the file
of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52 nd Court, Kurla,
Mumbai, arising out of C.R.No.384 of 2015 registered at
Mankhurd Police Station, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present in
application, the entire proceedings C.C.No.66/PW/2020 pending
in the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court,
Kurla, Mumbai, arising out of C.R.No.384 of 2015 registered at
Mankhurd Police Station, may kindly be stayed.”
11. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 22nd October 2026.
12. 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.
13. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. Interim
Application is also allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:53:51 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.