Bombay High Court
SHIVSHANKAR JAGANNATH MOURYA @ SHIVAJI MOURYAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the charge sheet under Section 528 BNSS, subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.15,000.
Summary
Shivshankar Jagannath Mourya was charged under multiple IPC offences and the Maharashtra Depositors Protection Act for promising high Bitcoin returns. The complainant, a tax consultant, claimed to have received the full amount back via online transfer and later affirmed no further complaint. The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashment of the charge sheet, relying on a police report confirming the settlement. The Court, invoking the inherent powers under Section 528 (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and the Bhajan Lal guidelines, held that the case could be quashed as it involved a private settlement of a non‑heinous offence. However, the Court imposed costs of Rs.15,000 to be paid to a charitable NGO, emphasizing deterrence against misuse of criminal law. The application was allowed and the charge sheet quashed subject to payment of costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge sheet can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the applicant in a consent‑quash proceeding.
- Applicability of the Bhajan Lal guidelines to non‑heinous commercial fraud offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- quashment
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CrPC
- consent settlement
- costs order
- fraud
- Bitcoin investment
- criminal procedure
- non‑heinous offence
Judgment
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1484 OF 2026
Shivshankar Jagannath Mourya @ Shivaji
Mourya .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Sandeep Mishra a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, Advocates for
Applicant
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
Ms. Nisha Chavan, API, Mumbra Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Newton, learned APP for State.
2. Present Application is filed under the provisions of Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short "BNSS") for
quashing the chargesheet No. I-32 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026 in
connection with FIR / CR No. 223 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 filed at
Mumbra Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short "IPC") and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act,
1999.
1 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
3. Applicant is arrayed as accused in the said FIR by Respondent
No. 3 – complainant. Respondent No. 3 is the tax consultant.
Respondent No. 3 invested certain amounts with the Applicant at his
behest on promising very high returns to investment in Bitcoin on the
basis of stories and footings on YouTube. According to the
complainant, he deposited Rs. 3 Lakh with the Applicant. However,
the prosecution has come up with the figure of Rs. 8.66 Lakh.
4. On the previous occasion, Mr. Mishra would persuade me to
consider quashing of the complaint on the ground that the
complainant had received his entire amount in one stroke by online
transfer. The complainant despite having been served is not present in
Court. Hence, this Court on 14.08.2026 passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Newton,
learned APP for Respondent.
2. Prosecution is directed to take cognizance of Affidavit appended at
page No.144 and take appropriate instructions from the concerned
Investigating Officer and apprise the Court on the next adjourned date and
if so require file Affidavit-in-Reply.
3. Mr. Mishra submits that by virtue of the said Affidavit, Complainant
has stated that he has received his entire amount by way of online transfer
and therefore has no further complaint against Applicant.
4. Hence, issue notice to Respondents. Learned APP enters appearance
and waives service on behalf of Respondent No.1 – State.
5. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Applicant is
directed to serve the Respondents a copy of this order and Application and
inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service
and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on the
next adjourned date.
6. Stand over to 28th August, 2026."
2 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
5. Today when the matter is called out for compliance, learned
APP places on record police report dated 30.08.2026 which is filed
after investigation with the complainant who informed the Police
Authorities that settlement is arrived between the Applicant and
complainant and complainant does not have any complaint
whatsoever with the Applicant. Complainant has informed the Police
Authorities that since he is out of station, he cannot personally come
and recorded his consent and no-objection for having received monies
and will come within 8-10 days to the Police Station for recording
statement. I have perused the said report. Prima facie, I do not have
any reason to disbelieve the same. I direct the learned APP to ensure
that the statement of the complainant is recorded as informed by him
and same is filed on record of the present Application.
6. In view of the above and the report filed by the concerned Police
Authorities dated 30.08.2026, there can be no impediment in allowing
the present Application as prayed for by the Applicant.
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
3 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
4 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
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”.
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
5 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
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.
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 Applicant for his actions resulting in the
complaint invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties
6 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant should pay costs. Applicant
is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to Anand Mangal
Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of
uploading of this order. Applicant is present in Court and through his
learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the
charity.
13. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at
the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment,
sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized
women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime
care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by
livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in
rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care
access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at
present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete
healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual
disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha
for payment of costs are as under:-
Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra
Account Number: 60434381304
7 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
IFSC Code: MAHB0002075
MICR Code: 423014102
Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.
Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,
Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga
Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,
Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.
14. In view of the above matter, the present Applicant deserves to be
allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so
allowed in terms of prayer clause "a" which read thus:-
“a) This Hon'ble Court may be please to call for the records and
proceeding in respect of charge sheet no. I-32 of 2025 dated
29.01.2026 in connection with F.I.R/C.R. No. 223 of 2025 dated
06.02.2025 filed at Mumbra Police Station, Thane, against the
present applicant and after examining the legality and propriety
thereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the charge
sheet no. I-32 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026 in connection with
F.I.R/C.R. No. 223 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 filed at Mumbra
Police Station, Thane, against the applicant.
15. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 15.09.2026.
16. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of Applicant on the returnable date for
compliance. If he does not remain present and there is non-compliance
8 of 9
23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt
of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order,
which shall be noted by the Applicant.
17. Application is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.01
14:55:51
+0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…