Bombay High Court
SUHAS KASTURCHAND SHAH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The application to quash FIR No. 0444/2022 is allowed, and the applicants are ordered to pay costs of Rs.20,000.
Summary
The applicants, who are the factory occupier, production supervisor and safety engineer, were charged in FIR No. 0444/2022 for the death of a worker and injuries to two others arising from a factory accident. The factory owner had already paid medical expenses and ex gratia to the victims' families, and the complainant (Respondent No.2) consented to quash the FIR. The court examined the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines to determine that the offences (IPC 304‑A, 337, 34) were not heinous and the dispute had been settled. Consequently, the court allowed the application to quash the FIR and ordered the applicants to pay Rs.20,000 as costs to a charitable NGO.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR under IPC sections 304‑A, 337 and 34 can be quashed by consent of the parties under Section 482/528 of the CrPC.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the applicants in a consent‑quashing application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304, 337, 34
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- consent quashing
- costs in criminal proceedings
- factory accident
- IPC 304‑A
- IPC 337
- IPC 34
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
Judgment
5-APL-1508-26.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (L) NO.1508 OF 2026
Suhas Kasturchand Shah And Ors .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Kushal Mor a/w. Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar i/b Mr. Tushar C.
Nirbhavne for Applicants.
Mr. Yogesh Nakhawa, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh for Respondent No. 2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kushal Mor, learned counsel for Applicants, Mr.
Yogesh Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent-State and Mr.
Veerdhawal Deshmukh for Respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application filed for quashing by consent of the parties.
The applicants are factory occupier, production supervisor and safety
engineer, who are arraigned as accused in the present case. The
Digitally signed
RAJESHWARI
by
RAJESHWARI
SUBODH
incident which occurred in the factory led to death of one worker and
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
2026.09.01
15:25:44 +0530
injuries to two others. Prima facie, the record of the proceedings shows
that the factory owner has taken care of the entire medical bills and
has also paid the ex gratia payment under the relevant statutory
provisions to the concerned parties/dependents. The present
1 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
proceedings emanate from complaint filed by one of the injured
persons who is duly represented by Mr. Deshmukh. Mr.Deshmukh in
all fairness, at the outset draws the Court’s attention to the affidavit of
consent dated filed by respondent No.2 giving his consent to quash the
present FIR. I have perused the same. He has given his consent
unequivocally.
3. Affidavit dated 20.07.2026 of the Complainant-Respondent No.2
is filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on
record. The contents of the said Affidavit prima facie show that the
entire dispute and settlement/ issue now stands resolved and hence
they now want to put an end to the criminal proceedings.
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
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
2 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
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 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.
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 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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
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 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
4 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
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. From reading of the papers and facts placed before me, it is prima
facie seen that the cause of action was due to an accident which
cannot be attributed to anybody’s dereliction insofar as the operations
in the factory is concerned. Needless to state that all other statutory
proceedings under the Factories Act qua the concerned incident in
question and the victims have already been undertaken, proceeded
with and taken to their logical end. The issue with regard to FIR
bearing No.444 of 2022 dated 21 December 2022 has now been said to
be resolved and quashed by consent of the parties. I find no reason as
to why the present application should not be allowed.
5 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
10. The affidavit of Respondent No.2 is on record dated 20.07.2026.
The application for quashing of FIR stands allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) , which reads thus:
“a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Application and
that FIR No. 0444/2022 dated 21 December 2022, registered at Shivaji
Nagar Police Station, Thane, under Section 304-A, 337 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any possible subsequent proceedings and
trial court proceedings arising out of and in connection with the present
FIR, including but not limited to any process issue order, summons and
chargesheet, be quashed and set aside, on such terms and conditions
that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;”
11. 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 complaint invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.
Hence, Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to Anand
Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha. All Applicants are present in Court
and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs
amount to the charity.
12. 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
6 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
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,
Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga
Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,
Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.
13. Needless to state that after filing of the petition, the charge-sheet
has been filed. The said chargesheet bearing No.0444/2026 and all
consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside.
14. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 11 September 2026.
7 of 8
5-APL-1508-26.doc
15. Advocates for Applicants in Application shall remain present
and show compliance on behalf of all Applicants on the returnable date
for compliance. If they do 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/parties to
Application.
16. Application is allowed and disposed.
rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
8 of 8
Checking your session…