Bombay High Court
AKBAR ABDUL RAHIM PASHA @ ROHIT SHETTY AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR and ordered the applicants to pay costs.
Summary
The dispute arose over a Rs.32‑lakh canteen contract at the Ordnance Factory, leading to a criminal complaint for cheating and breach of trust. The parties later executed a Memorandum of Understanding, exchanged cheques and filed a consent affidavit seeking to quash the FIR. The Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. It held that, given the settlement of a non‑heinous commercial dispute, the FIR could be quashed, but costs should be imposed on the applicants to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the application for consent quashing was allowed and the applicants were ordered to pay Rs.10,000 each to the Bar Council’s Advocate Aid Fund. The criminal application was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR for cheating and breach of trust can be quashed by consent under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the High Court may impose costs on parties in a consent‑quashing proceeding.
- Whether a settlement of a commercial dispute justifies the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- cheating
- breach of trust
- costs
- commercial settlement
- criminal procedure
Judgment
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1394 OF 2026
Akbar Abdul Rahim Pasha @ Rohit Shetty and
Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Mr. Uttam Singh Rathod and Mr. Aniket
Wadhwani, Advocates for Applicants.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Akshay Giri a/w. Mr. Sankalp Vichare, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Giri, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. The dispute between the parties arose on account of an
award of a canteen contract in the Ordnance Factory at Ambernath in
Mumbai. An amount of Rs.32 lakhs was exchanged between the parties
which led to filing of the criminal complaint for cheating and breach of
trust in view of no reciprocation received by the Complainant. The
learned Advocates jointly inform the Court that Memorandum of
Understanding dated 13.07.2026 has been executed by the parties,
copy of which is appended at page 143 of the Application which prima
1 of 6
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
facie relates to a complete settlement of the dispute and differences
between the parties.
3. The parties have infact resolved and exchanged cheques
some of which are post-dated to be received in future tranches
between them and resolved to put an end to the criminal proceedings
since it affects their future prospects of getting government contracts.
The consent Affidavit of Complainant is filed and appended at page
151 of the Application. I have considered the same and in view of the
aforesaid submissions made, inclined to allow the present Application.
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
2 of 6
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
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,
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”.
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 6
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
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
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
4 of 6
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
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.
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/- each to
Account Name: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid
Fund; Bank Name: State Bank of India; Branch Name: Mumbai Main
Branch; Account No.10996711937; IFS Code: SBIN0000300 and Type
of Account: Savings Account. All Applicants are present in Court and
through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs
amount as directed.
5 of 6
132.APL.1394.2026.doc
10. In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates
persuade the Court to allow the Application by consent quashing. The
Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads
thus:-
“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R.
bearing C.R. No. 311 of 2020, registered with
Kasarvadavli Police Station and all other proceedings
arising out of the said F.I.R. being R.C.C. No. 843 of 2021,
pending before 11th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Thane.”
11. In view of the above, Criminal Application is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.12
16:23:58 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…