ATITHI PATELversusECONOMIC OFFENCE WING AND ANR.

                                                                             23-APL-1411-19.doc

Urmila Ingale

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1411 OF 2019

                Atithi Patel & Anr.
                                                                        .. Applicants
                          Versus
                Economic Offence Wing & Anr.
                                                                        .. Respondents

                                            ....................
                 Ms. Shanice Mansukhani a/w Mr. Samit Shukla &Mr. Mustafa
                  Nulwala i/b Trilegal, Advocate for Applicant.
                 Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for State.
                 Ms. Prakruti Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                 API- Mr. M.B. Patil, Economic Offence Wing Housing Unit 2
                                              ...................

                                             CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                             DATE          : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
                P.C.:

                1.        Heard Ms. Mansukhani, learned Advocate for Applicants;

                Ms. Rao, learned APP for State and Ms. Joshi, learned Advocate for

                Respondent No.2.


                2.        Present Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

                Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash and set side the FIR

                bearing No. 69/2018 (Bangur Police Station CR No. 254/2018) dated

                11.08.2018 and consequential proceedings thereto.


                3.        Ms. Mansukhani, learned Advocates for Applicants who are

                developers has persuaded me to consider the present Application to be

                determined by consent quashing. The Respondent-Complainant is also


                                                                                         1 of 8
                                                         23-APL-1411-19.doc


duly represented by Advocate Ms. Joshi.        Consent affidavit dated

21.04.2029 filed by Respondent No.2 - Complainant is placed before

the Court. I have perused the same.


4.        Briefly stated, the relationship between the Applicants and

Complainant pertains to a transaction of purchase of flat. After the

complaint was filed, it was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing

(‘EOW’, for short) and further investigated.     The EOW found that

there was 8 other similarly placed victims just like the Complainant.


5.        Today, when the matter is settled between the Applicants

and the Complainant, Ms. Mansukhani, in her usual fair mindedness

placed on record additional affidavit. To be fair to the prosecution

and EOW whose officer is present in the Court, settlement documents

with respect to all 8 similarly placed persons along with the

Complainant before me are reflected in the affidavit along with their

respective settlement document appended at Exhs. ‘A’ to ‘I’. The said

additional affidavit is taken on record.   Copy of the same is given to

learned APP who is present in the Court so that the same can be given

to the EOW officer who is present for ascertainment and closure

subject to verification.   This therefore takes care of the objection

raised by learned APP that they are yet to ascertain the aforesaid issue.

The present Application is pending for the past more than seven years.


6.        Considering the submissions made and all parties have


                                                                     2 of 8
                                                         23-APL-1411-19.doc


reconciled their lis, I am inclined to consider the request made by

Applicants for consent quashing on the basis of the consent affidavit,

copy of which is appended at page Nos. 38-43 of the Application. The

said consent affidavit is in the form of Consent Terms filed before the

MahaRera Authority, wherein the Complainant has made an averment

that he shall withdraw all allegations and proceedings etc. qua the

subject dispute. The Complainant’s Advocate is present in Court. She

confirms the fact that all undertakings given in the Consent Terms

have been fructified in the interregnum. She has filed further affidavit

dated 21.04.2026 to that effect. In that affidavit in paragraph Nos. 4 to

9, absolute consent without any force or duress has been given by the

Complainant for quashing of the criminal proceedings which is

accepted by the Court.      Hence, in my opinion, there can be no

impediment in putting closure and quietus to the present dispute by

consent quashing.


7.        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

                                                                     3 of 8
                                                            23-APL-1411-19.doc


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.


8.           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.


9.           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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        4 of 8
                                                       23-APL-1411-19.doc


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”.


10.      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

                                                                   5 of 8
                                                          23-APL-1411-19.doc


humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


11.       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.


12.       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 Applicant should pay costs.

Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- 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



                                                                      6 of 8
                                                               23-APL-1411-19.doc


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.


13.       Applicants are present in Court and through their Advocates

agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period

of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.


14.       In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves

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

so allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (a)(i) which read thus:-

          “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order allowing the
               present Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
               Code by quashing/setting aside the FIR bearing FIR No. 69/2018
               (Bangur Police Station CR No.254/2018) dated August 11, 2018;
          (a)(i)This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order quashing and
                setting aside the Chargesheet filed by the Respondent No.1 in the
                Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai
                in case No. PW/144 of 2020, in connection with First Information
                Report, i.e. C.R. No. 69 of 2018 dated August 11, 2018 (Bangur
                Nagar Police Station C.R. No. 254 of 2018) filed by the
                Respondent No.1, i.e. the Economic Offences Wing, for offences
                punishable under Section 34, 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal
                Code, 1860 and Sections 3,4,5 and 13 of the Maharashtra
                Ownership of Flats Act, 1963.”


15.       List the Application for compliance of the order on 6th

                                                                           7 of 8
                                                                                  23-APL-1411-19.doc


                October, 2026.


                16.                   Advocate for Applicants shall remain present and show

                compliance on that date. 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.


                17.                   Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.




Urmila Ingale                                                      [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                           Digitally signed
                           by RAVINDRA
                RAVINDRA MOHAN
                         AMBERKAR
                MOHAN    Date:
                AMBERKAR 2026.09.15
                           18:09:41
                           +0530




                                                                                              8 of 8