Bombay High Court

CAPT ALOK KUMARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 9 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

The Court held that the FIR must be quashed as the matter is a private commercial dispute settled by the parties, subject to the payment of costs.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash of FIR No. 0507 dated 8 July 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 316 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Both parties disclosed that the dispute arose from a private commercial transaction involving a sea‑going vessel and that they had amicably settled the matter through a notarised resolution agreement dated 5 February 2026. The respondent (Ashwin Samant) filed an affidavit stating no objection to quashing the FIR. The State, while not opposing the quash, sought exemplary costs. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that private civil disputes do not warrant criminal prosecution, the Court allowed the application, quashed the FIR, and ordered each party to deposit Rs.2,50,000 as costs, making the application and the related interim application disposed.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR arising from a private commercial dispute can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the settlement agreement and the complainant's affidavit constitute sufficient ground to dismiss criminal proceedings.
Whether exemplary costs may be imposed on the parties despite the settlement.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316, 318(4), 3(5)
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528

Subjects

quash FIR
private commercial dispute
settlement agreement
Section 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
costs
criminal proceedings
civil settlement

Judgment

Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT (46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.03.13
21:16:48 +0530 lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1459 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1459 OF 2025

Capt Alok Kumar : Applicant

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra

2] Officer In-charge Search-I,
Crime Branch, Thane City, EOW, Thane

3] Bureau of Immigration
Through its Commissioner
(Immigration)

4] Ashwin Samant : Respondents.

______________________________________________________
Mr.Faran Khan a/w Adv. Dhruvee Patel and Adv. Darshil Shah
i/by Adv. Swapnil Khatri i/by Kalpesh Joshi Associates for the
Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A Karmakar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Joran Diwan i/by Diwan Law Associates for Respondent
No.4.
______________________________________________________

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 09 MARCH 2026
PC:-

1
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

1. Heard Mr. Farhan Khan, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State and Mr. Joran Diwan, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.4.

2. This Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Applicant
for quashing the FIR bearing 0507 dated 08 July 2025
(impugned FIR) registered with Thane Nagar Police Station
now transferred to Search-I, Crime Branch, Thane City, DOW,
Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316
and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. The Applicant appears through V.C. and is identified by
his Advocate Mr. Farhan Khan. He submits the Photostat copy
of the Applicant’s Identity Card, which is taken on record and
marked as “X” for identification.

4. Respondent No.4 is present in the Court and is
identified by his Advocate Mr. Joran Diwan. He submits the
Photostat copy of Respondent No.4’s identify card, which is
taken on record and marked as “X-1” for identification.

5. Mr. Joran Diwan states that the Affidavit dated 13
February 2026 affirmed by Respondent No.4 before the
Notary Rambhawan B Kewat of Parel (E), Mumbai is placed
on record, the same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

6. Respondent No. 4 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is
filed out of his own free will and without any pressure or

2
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

coercion from any person. He states that the contents of the
Affidavit (X-2) are as per his say. He reiterates his no objection
for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

7. Mr. Farhan Khan, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
and Mr. Joran Diwan, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4,
submit that the subject matter of the impugned FIR pertains
to a private commercial dispute. To clarify, they state that the
dispute involved the purchase and sale of a sea-going vessel.
They state that a document executed during the said
commercial transaction, which was not intended for use, was
used by the Applicant, leading to the dispute. They further
state that the dispute resulted in the Applicant filing various
proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal seated in Singapore,
the Singapore High Court, the Gujarat High Court, and the
Orissa High Court. Additionally, they submit that the
Applicant and Respondent No. 4 filed civil proceedings before
this Court. They also assert that the Applicant and Respondent
No. 4 have amicably resolved the matter and entered into a
resolution agreement on 05 February 2026 in Mumbai. They
mention that the parties have acted on the said resolution
agreement and settled their dispute. They contend that, in
light of this resolution, Respondent No. 4 has no objection to
the quashing of the criminal proceedings, as stated in the
Affidavit (X-2). They state that the subject matter of the
impugned FIR does not pertain to any public fund, public
institution, or financial institution. They rely on paragraphs 2

3
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

to 5 of the Respondent No. 4’s Affidavit (X-2), which are
transcribed below verbatim: -

“2. I am the original complainant in the present
case. On 8 July 2025, a First Information Report bearing
No. 0507 of 2025 dated 8 July 2025 (FIR) was registered
under sections 3(5), 316 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita 2023 at Thane Nagar Police Station against
the Applicant and another The FIR is presently at the
investigation stage. I say that there are several other
disputes between the parties before various forums
including before this Hon'ble High Court, Arbitral Tribunal
seated in Singapore, Hon'ble Singapore High Court,
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Orissa High
Court. The disputes between the parties are private in
nature and are not heinous crimes and have no impact on
society,

3. With the intention to bring a quietus to all the
disputes and differences between the parties, on 5
February 2025, by way of a notarized resolution
agreement (Resolution Agreement), the Applicant and I
have decided to amicably settle our disputes as per the
terms and conditions detailed therein. A copy of the
Resolution Agreement has been placed on record by the
Applicant by way of the captioned Application.

4. By way of the said captioned Application, the
Applicant has, by consent of parties, sought for reliefs
including quashing and setting aside the subject FIR dated
8 July 2025, as particularly mentioned at paragraph no. 6
of the said Application.

5. I am making this present affidavit to accord my
consent and to state that I have no objection if the reliefs
sought by the Applicant in the captioned Application are
granted by this Hon'ble Court.”

8. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, the learned APP for the
Respondent/State, submits that a private commercial
transaction was given a criminal character by Respondent
No.4. However, he states that, based on the settlement
reached between the parties, as evidenced by the resolution

4
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

agreement dated 05 February 2026, and considering that
Respondent No.4 has filed his Affidavit (X-2) and conveyed no
objection to quashing the criminal proceedings, he has no
objection to quashing the impugned FIR. Nevertheless, he
insists on imposing exemplary costs on the parties.

9. Mr. Farhan Khan and Mr. Joran Diwan, on instructions,
submit that the Applicant and Respondent No.4 shall deposit
appropriate costs.

10. Considering the facts mentioned above and the
submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties,
since the dispute involves a private commercial transaction
and the settlement is disclosed in the resolution agreement
dated 05 February 2026, along with the statements made by
Respondent No. 4 in the Affidavit (X-2), continuing the
criminal prosecution would not serve a useful purpose.
Having regard to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab1, Narinder Singh And
Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr2 and Parbatbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat3, there is no impediment to
granting this Application.

11. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.1459 of
2025 is allowed as per prayer clause (B), subject to the
payment of Rs.2,50,000/- in costs by the Applicant and
Rs.2,50,000/- in costs by Respondent No.4. Payment of costs
1
2012 10 SCC 303
2
2014 6 SCC 466
3
2017 9 SCC 641

5
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

is a condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR is
quashed.

12. The Applicant and Respondent No.4 shall each deposit
Rs.2,50,000/- into the account mentioned below within two
weeks from today, and file a compliance affidavit along with
proof of deposit in the Court Registry on or before 30 March
2026.

a] The Applicant shall deposit costs of Rs.2,50,000/- in:-

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at
Mumbai
Account No.: 000120110001337
Bank : Bank of India
Branch : Mumbai Main
IFSC Code : BKID0000001

b] The Respondent No.4 shall deposit costs of
Rs.2,50,000/- in :-

Mahila Vikas Mandal, Colaba
Bank : Bank of Baroda
Branch : Backbay Reclamation Branch, Mumbai-20
A/c No. : 03820100002611
IFSC Code : BARBOBACKBA
A/c Name : Mahila Vikas Mandal Colaba
A/c Type : Savings.

13. Criminal Application No.1459 of 2025 is disposed of.

6
(46) APL-1459.25-AW-IA-492.26.DOCX

14. In view of disposal of the Criminal Application, Interim
Application No.492 of 2026 does not survive and the same is
disposed of accordingly.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…