Bombay High Court
RAVINDRA BALU BHARTI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court allowed the quashing of the FIR, subject to the applicants paying the directed costs.
Summary
The applicants and respondents, who were involved in a financial dispute over investments, reconciled and sought to have the criminal proceedings against the applicants quashed. The FIR, registered under sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was filed by the complainant alleging cheating, forgery and breach of trust. The court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings where the dispute is essentially civil and the offences are not heinous. Relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed if it serves the interests of justice. The court allowed the application for quashing, directing the applicants to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000 to a charitable trust, and ordered compliance within two weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for offences under sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a private settlement under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether non‑compoundable offences may be quashed when the underlying dispute is civil/commercial and the parties have settled.
- Whether the court may impose costs on the parties in a consent‑quashing application.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- settlement of civil dispute
- imposition of costs
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
Judgment
161.APL.1369.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1369 OF 2026
Ravindra Balu Bharti And Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Raviraj Paramane, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Dattatray Yadav, Advocate i/by Mr. Amey Sirsikar for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Paramane, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Yadav, learned
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The dispute between the parties is on account of a
relationship between them in regard to financial transactions where
parties have parked their money with each other with regard to
investment in shares, stock and for higher returns. The parties have
reconciled their disputes. The offenses are of cheating and forgery and
breach of trust. The amounts between the parties have been exchanged
and parties have persuaded the Court to get an end to the criminal
proceedings so that the parties can be free to lead their lives freely
without the ignominy of the criminal proceedings.
1 of 6
161.APL.1369.2026.doc
3. Consent Affidavits dated 08.10.2026 are appended at page
Nos.37 and 40. I have perused the same. Parties are present in court. I
have interacted with them in the able assistance of the Advocates.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 6
161.APL.1369.2026.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 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
3 of 6
161.APL.1369.2026.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 6
161.APL.1369.2026.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 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.25,000/- 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.
5 of 6
161.APL.1369.2026.doc
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 clause ‘a’
which read thus:-
“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR i.e. Crime Report No. 450/2025 registered with
Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for offences u/s 406, 409, 420 r/w
34 of IPC Act, in the interest of justice; ”
11. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 23rd 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.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.10.10
12:55:50 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…