ZULFEEQUAR DAULAT KHAN SARGUROH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                      63. APL-1560-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1560 OF 2026

           Zulfeequar Daulat Khan Sarguroh & Ors.           .. Applicants
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi i/by Pravada Rauit, Advocates for
              Applicants
            Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for State
            Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Mr. Tanmay Karmakar, Advocates for
             Respondent No. 2
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : AUGUST 31, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms.

           Gotad, learned APP for State and Mr. Mor, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.        Present Application is filed under the provisions of Section 482

           of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding with Section

           528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash the

           FIR dated 24.04.2024 bearing C.R. No. 0415 of 2024 registered with

           Amboli Police Station under Section 406, 420, r/w. 34 of the Indian

           Penal Code, 1860 against the Applicants.


           3.       Parties have reconciled their disputes which emanate from a

           commercial transaction with regard to the supply of minerals between


                                                                                  1 of 6
                                                       63. APL-1560-26.odt


the parties. Parties have filed Consent Terms. Affidavit of Responder

dated 29.08.2026 gives reference of the said Consent Terms by which

the amount has been returned back by the Applicants to the

complainant. Consent affidavit of Responder No. 2 dated 29.08.2026

is taken on record. I have perused the same. All parties are present

before the court. I have interacted with them. Complainant has

confirmed the filing of the consent affidavit. They urge the Court to

quash 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

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.


                                                                   2 of 6
                                                          63. APL-1560-26.odt


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

by “consent quashing”.




1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                      3 of 6
                                                        63. APL-1560-26.odt


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 the

growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints


                                                                    4 of 6
                                                         63. APL-1560-26.odt


(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 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. 25,000/- to A.K. Munshi

Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special School

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,


                                                                     5 of 6
                                                                                     63. APL-1560-26.odt


            3rd 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.

            10.        All Applicants are present in Court and through their learned

            Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

            11.        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)     That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power
                                         under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
                                         corresponding with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
                                         Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and may be pleased to quash the FIR
                                         dated 24.04.2024 bearing C.R. No. 0415 of 2024 registered with
                                         Amboli Police Station under Section 406, 420, r/w. 34 of the
                                         Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Applicants.
            12.            List the Appilcation for compliance of the order regarding

            payment of costs on 15th September, 2026.

            13.        Advocate for Applicants shall remain present and show

            compliance on behalf of the 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 Applicants / parties to both Petitions.

            14.        Application is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                                                                  [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                    2026.09.02
                      12:18:24 +0530

                                                                                                 6 of 6