Bombay High Court
KAILASH ANANDRAO ATOLE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the consent quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 528, subject to the payment of costs.
Summary
The parties, who are family members, were involved in a dispute over a will that led to a civil suit and the filing of an FIR (CR No. 189 of 2026) for several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. After reaching a settlement, the complainant filed two consent affidavits seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court, invoking its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, allowed the consent quashing of both the FIR and the related chargesheet, emphasizing that the dispute was civil in nature and the offences were not heinous. The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to a charitable trust, reasoning that costs deter misuse of criminal law and compensate public resources. The application and writ were consequently allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR and criminal proceedings arising from a civil family dispute under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether consent quashing is permissible for the offences alleged, given they are not heinous.
- Whether costs may be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing of criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act, 1950
- Society Registration Act, 1980
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528
- family dispute
- will dispute
- criminal proceeding
- costs imposition
- inherent powers of High Court
- abuse of process
Judgment
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026
Kailas Anandrao Atole & ors. .Applicants
Vs.
ANAND The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Digitally signed by
WITH
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2026
Date: 2026.09.30
12:39:58 +0530
Charudatta Bhagwantrao Nandere & anr. .Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
Mr. Sachin B. Thorat a/w. Mr. Vijay B. Kurhade, Ms. Pranali Daware
i/b. Mr. Yogesh Thorat, Advocates, for the Applicants in Cri. Appln. No.
1439 of 2026 and for the Petitioners in W. P. No. 4359 of 2026
Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
Mr. Mahesh Thite, PSI, Baner Police Station, Pune present
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 18.09.2026
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Sachin Thorat, learned Counsel for the
Applicants/Petitioners and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent
No. 1- State.
2. The parties have settled their dispute. They are all family
members. The dispute had arisen in view of the Will. Compromise
Anand 1 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
pursis is filed before the Civil Court. The parties had already acted
upon the same. They desire to quash the present Criminal proceeding
by consent quashing. After hearing the submissions of the learned
Advocates and in fact, the parties, who are all present before the me,
the present Petition deserves to be allowed so that the parties can now
live their life in future without the hindrance of the Criminal
prosecution or proceeding. Since there are two proceedings, two
different Consent Affidavits have been filed by the Complainant, who is
common. The Consent Affidavits are dated 11.09.2026. They are taken
on record. I have interacted with the Complainant. He affirms the
contents of the same.
3. In that view of the matter, the Application and the Petition stand
allowed.
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
Anand 2 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.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.
5. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1 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
1
1992 AIR 604
Anand 3 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
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 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
Anand 4 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
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.
9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
I am of the opinion that the Applicants and the Petitioners, for their
Anand 5 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and
now all the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants and the
Petitioners, should pay costs. Hence, Applicants and Petitioners are
both directed to pay combined costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 12,500/- each
in the two matters) 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, 3 rd
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. The Applicants and the
Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocate
agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
10. In view of the above matter, the present Application and the
Petition deserve to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed
herein above. They are so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and
Anand 6 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
‘A-1’ and ‘B’ and ‘B-1’
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026
“A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its powers
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 and may be pleased to quash the FIR bearing C. R. No. 189
of 2026 registered with the Baner Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 318(4), 336(2),
336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
A-1) Be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet filed in the said
FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 before the Ld. 2 nd Jt. C. J. J. D.
and J. M. F. C. Pune as well as quash the Criminal Proceedings
bearing No. Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 3592 of 2026
arising out of said C. R. and pending before the Ld. 2 nd Jt. C.J.J.D.
and J. M. F. C. Pune.”
WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2026
“B) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and QUASH AND SET ASIDE FIR
bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 registered with the Baner Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 319(2),
318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, insofar as the present Petitioners are concerned.
B-1) Be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet filed in the said
FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 before the Ld. 2 nd Jt. C. J. J. D.
and J. M. F. C. Pune as well as quash the Criminal Proceedings
bearing No. Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 3592 of 2026
arising out of said C. R. and pending before the Ld. 2 nd Jt. C.J.J.D.
and J. M. F. C. Pune.”
11. List the Criminal Application and Writ Petition for compliance of
the order regarding payment of costs on 05.10.2026.
12. Advocate for the Petitioners and Applicants shall remain present
and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioners and Applicants on the
Anand 7 of 8
69. APL 1439-2026.doc
returnable 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 Petitioners and the
Applicants.
13. Criminal Application and Writ Petition are allowed and disposed.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 8 of 8
Checking your session…