KRISHANPAL CHARANPAL SINGH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                             140.APL.1638.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1638 OF 2026

       Krishnapal Charanpal Singh and Ors.                .. Applicants
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      .. Respondents

                                  ....................
        Ms. Sonal Parab a/w. Ms. Esha Rane, Advocates for Applicants.
        Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
        Mr. Priyatosh R. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No.2 –
         Complainant.
                                    ......…...........

                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE        : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.

       P.C.:

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

       Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Tiwari,

       learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Complainant.


       2.        The dispute and lis between the parties emanated out of

       exchange of monies and non-payment thereof led to filing of the FIR

       for cheating and breach of trust.


       3.        The parties have reconciled and have exchanged the monies.

       Consent terms dated 30.08.2026 are appended at Exhibit ‘B’ - page 29

       in which it is stated that Complainant has already received Rs.30 lakhs

       and on the date of quashing of the present Application, a Demand

       Draft of Rs.10 lakhs will be received by her. The Demand Draft of

                                                                           1 of 6
                                                      140.APL.1638.2026.doc


Rs.10 lakhs is handed over to the Complainant who is present in Court

through her Advocate Mr. Tiwari. (Demand Draft No.934988 of HDFC

Bank, dated 17.08.2026) The consent Affidavit is filed by the

Complainant. She is present in Court. I have interacted with her. She

confirms the receipt of all the aforesaid amounts and the Demand

Draft.


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 Lal 1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                    2 of 6
                                                        140.APL.1638.2026.doc


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

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”.


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



                                                                      3 of 6
                                                     140.APL.1638.2026.doc


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 (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

                                                                   4 of 6
                                                        140.APL.1638.2026.doc


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 complainant 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 Account

Name: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund; Bank

Name: State Bank of India; Branch Name: Mumbai Main Branch;

Account No.10996711937; IFS Code: SBIN0000300 and Type of

Account: Savings Account. All Applicants are present in Court and

through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs

amount as directed.


10.       In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates

persuade the Court to allow the Application by consent quashing. The

Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads

thus:-



                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                      140.APL.1638.2026.doc


                                       “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash FIR No. 0484
                                            of 2026 filed by the Respondent No. 2 at Mankhurd Police
                                            Station, Mumbai for alleged offences punishable 3(5),
                                            318(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the
                                            Applicants/Accused on such terms and conditions as this
                                            Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”



                                 11.   In view of the above, Criminal Application is disposed.




                                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

       Ajay
              Digitally signed
              by AJAY
AJAY          TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK       UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE    Date:
              2026.09.12
              16:59:20 +0530




                                                                                                       6 of 6