SAURABH DATTATRAYA PARAB AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                       3.APL.1568.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1568 OF 2026

              Saurabh Dattatraya Parab And Anr.                .. Applicants
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                .. Respondents
                                          ....................
               Mr. R. L. Majgaonkar, Advocate for Applicants.
               Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent No.1.
               PSI – Archana Anbule, Shivaji Park Police Station.
                                            ...................

                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : OCTOBER 09, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.       Heard Mr. Majgaonkar, learned Advocate for Applicant and

              Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent.


              2.       The dispute in the present case has arisen out of an

              innocuous incident whereby the Applicants had photographed the

              vehicle of the Complainant during parking and the Complainant began

              questioning the Applicants which led to a verbal altercation and filing

              of the Complaint. The supplementary statement of the complainant

              dated26.04.2025 has been recorded by the prosecution wherein she

              clearly states that the Complainant has no desire of prosecuting the

              Complaint further.


              3.       Considering the dispute in the present case which related to

              parking of the vehicle and a photograph having been taken which led



                                                                                   1 of 3
                                                            3.APL.1568.2026.doc


to the altercation, I am inclined to consider the case of the Applicants

for quashing of the present Complaint.


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.


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     further     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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        2 of 3
                                                                                            3.APL.1568.2026.doc


                      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 the offence is not heinous or does

                      not impact the society at large, the Court can consider the request for

                      quashing.


                      7.                 In view of the above, the Application stands allowed in terms

                      of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-


                                         “(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the
                                              FIR bearing C.R.No.123 of 2025 registered by the Respondent
                                              No.1”

                      8.                 Criminal Application is allowed and disposed in the above

                      terms.



H. H. SAWANT                                                               [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]



                      Digitally signed
           HARSHADA   by HARSHADA
                      HANUMANT
           HANUMANT   SAWANT
           SAWANT     Date: 2026.10.10
                      13:03:49 +0530




                                                                                                         3 of 3