LAKHAN LALACHAND DHAMWANI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                      24. APL-1489-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2026

           Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani & Anr.                  .. Applicants
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat, Advocate for Applicants
            Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for State
            Ms. Madhumati Shinde, API, Pimpri Police Station
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : AUGUST 31, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for Applicants and Ms.

           Phad, learned APP for State.


           2.       Present Application is filed under the provisions of Section 528

           of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS")

           seeking quashing and setting aside of FIR bearing No. 210 of 2023

           registered with Pimpri Police Station for offence punishable under

           Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "said

           Act").


           3.       There are two Applicants before me who are arraigned as

           accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the present case. Allegation in the FIR and

           the chargesheet which has now been filed is that under the influence

           of alcohol they were both shouting on each other loudly on the public


                                                                                  1 of 8
                                                       24. APL-1489-26.odt


street and therefore complaint alleged breach of public peace and

disturbance to the public at large.


4.    It is not the case of the prosecution that both the Applicants had

shouted at any third party or disturbing public peace. Prima facie, on

bare reading of the charges, I am of the clear opinion that no

cognizable offences are made out and therefore interference of this

Court is necessary.


5.    One of the Applicant incidentally happened to be a person

pursuing law studies. Apart from the fact that they were shouting

loudly, there was no other specific allegation against the accused

persons. Undoubtedly, consumption of alcohol cannot be an offence

under Section 85 of the said Act but in order to invoke the said

provision, improperly and disorderly behaviour is required to be culled

out from the facts of each case. Save and except the prima facie case

of both the Applicants shouting at each other, there is no charge of the

prosecution of any element of obscenity, depravity or moral

offensiveness as required by the regulation and the extant provisions

of Section 85 of the said Act.


6.    Mr. Kharat would persuade me to consider that mere volume

cannot be equated to be in violation of decency which is apparently

the act in the present case. He has referred to and relied upon the



                                                                   2 of 8
                                                                         24. APL-1489-26.odt


decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh

Sitaram Mankari & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra 1 wherein this

Court had ascribed and considered the dictionary meaning of the term,

inter alia, pertaining to "disorderly behaviour in society" to mean

behaviour which is completely out of order, in confusion, irregular,

lawless, defying the restrains of decency. That not having been seen in

the facts of the present case and case of the prosecution hinges only on

the issue of loud shouting or causing disturbance of peace, I am

inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Kharat and allow the

present Application.


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 Cr.P.C.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


1    Judgment dated 09.02.2026 in Criminal Application No. 151 of 2021

                                                                                     3 of 8
                                                          24. APL-1489-26.odt


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 Lal2 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

and thereafter both parties seeking quashing of proceedings by

consent, in my opinion, can be considered by Court which can impose

2    1992 AIR 604

                                                                      4 of 8
                                                        24. APL-1489-26.odt


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 humongous

pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


                                                                    5 of 8
                                                         24. APL-1489-26.odt


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 Applicants should pay costs.

Applicans are directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal

Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of

uploading of this order. Applicants are present in Court and through




                                                                     6 of 8
                                                       24. APL-1489-26.odt


their 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

             IFSC Code:                       MAHB0002075

             MICR Code:                         423014102



Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.

Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,

                                                                   7 of 8
                                                                                        24. APL-1489-26.odt


           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 Application 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 pleased to quash and set aside FIR
                                         bearing No 210 of 2023 registered at the instance of Pimpri Police
                                         Station for offence punishable under Section 85(1) of Mumbai
                                         Prohibition Act, 1998, on such terms and conditions this Hon'ble
                                         Court may deem fit and proper.

           15.      List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

           payment of costs on 15.09.2026.


           16.      Advocate for Applicants shall remain present and show

           compliance on behalf of Applicants                           on the 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 Applicant.


           17.      Application is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.09.01
                      14:57:10
                      +0530




                                                                                                     8 of 8