SURESH RAJARAM PAWSHE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                             72.APL.1675.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1675 OF 2026

       Suresh Rajaram Pawshe and Ors.                    .. Applicants
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                     .. Respondents

                                   ....................
        Mr. Arjun Jeswani, Advocate appearing through video conferencing
         a/w. Mr. Nikhil Rajpal for Applicants.
        Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
        Mr. Raj Chourasia, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                   ......…...........

                                  CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                  DATE         : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.       Heard Mr. Jeswani, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr.

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

       Chourasia, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


       2.       Present Application is filed seeking quashing and setting

       aside of the FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising

       therefrom. The dispute between the parties stands amicably resolved

       between them. The amounts have been exchanged by virtue of the

       Agreements which have been executed and registered as stated in the

       Consent Affidavit. Consent Affidavit dated 24.09.2026 is placed before

       the same. I have perused the same. Parties are present before the

       Court. They desire that criminal proceedings be quashed by consent


                                                                          1 of 6
                                                        72.APL.1675.2026.doc


quashing so that parties are free to live their life and do their business

happily without ignominy of the criminal proceedings.


3.           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.


4.           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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                     2 of 6
                                                         72.APL.1675.2026.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.


5.        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”.


6.        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



                                                                      3 of 6
                                                      72.APL.1675.2026.doc


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.


7.       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

                                                                   4 of 6
                                                         72.APL.1675.2026.doc


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.


8.        Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that Applicants persons 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/-

towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical

centres, vocational training centres and which also runs a Special

School called J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, 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, 3 rd 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. All Applicants are present in

Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity.



                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                          72.APL.1675.2026.doc


                              9.        In view of the above matter, the present Criminal Application

                              deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein

                              above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which read thus:-

                                        “b)   Quash and set aside F.I.R. bearing CR-I-612/2022, registered on
                                              15.08.2022, with Manpada Police Station, Dombivali, Dist.
                                              Thane, registered at the instance of Respondent No.2, u/s. 420,
                                              406, 506, r/w.34 of I.P.C. & the proceedings if any arising
                                              therefrom in the interest of justice.”


                              10.       List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

                              payment of costs on 8th October 2026.


                              11.       Advocate in Application for Applicants 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 the

                              Application.


                              12.       Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.




                                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

        Ajay
           Digitally signed
           by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
           2026.09.28
           09:45:18 +0530




                                                                                                       6 of 6