Bombay High Court
SUJIT BHANUDAS GHODKE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court quashed the FIR and charges under Section 528 BNSS and ordered the applicants to pay costs.
Summary
The applicants, contractors of the complainant, were accused of cheating and breach of trust, leading to an FIR for several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The parties later entered into a Deed of Compromise, with the complainant affirming receipt of the agreed amounts. The court examined its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings when a private settlement resolves the dispute and no prima facie case remains. Relying on the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that non‑heinous, non‑compoundable offences may be quashed to prevent abuse of process and wastage of public resources. The court allowed the consent quashing of the FIR and charges and ordered each applicant to pay Rs.10,000 as costs to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be quashed by consent under Section 528 BNSS in light of a private settlement.
- Whether the court may impose costs on the applicants for initiating criminal proceedings that were later settled.
- Whether non‑heinous, non‑compoundable offences may be quashed despite the general rule against compounding such offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- costs
- settlement
- non‑heinous offences
- commercial dispute
Judgment
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1689 OF 2026
Sujit Bhanudas Ghodke and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Suyash Nitin Khose a/w. Mr. Siddharth N. Sutaria, Mrugen
Dhaga, Mr. Abhijit Aher and Mr. Harshal Chavan, Advocates for
Applicants.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Ravindra Pandurang Salve, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Khose, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr.
Palkar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Salve,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. The parties have a long standing relationship in view of the
Applicants being contractors of Respondent No.2 - Complainant.
Certain amounts were exchanged, but were not repaid. This led to the
dispute and lodging of complaint and FIR for cheating and breach of
trust. The parties have entered into consent terms, copies of which are
appended at page No.236. I have perused the same. It is a Deed of
Compromise which prima facie shows that all disputes stand settled
and payments have been received as stated therein.
1 of 6
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
3. The Consent Affidavit is tendered across the bar by the
Complainant. The complainant is physically present in Court. He
affirms the contents of the consent Affidavit and the amounts having
been received as per the Deed of Compromise.
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
said judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court
has further asserted that power under Section 482 is an
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 6
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
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
scores and/or bring the parties into subjugation. I am of the firm
opinion that imposition of costs in consent quashing matters is
3 of 6
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
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
State machinery can be put to costs if a purely civil dispute between
parties strongly emanating from the facts on record is registered as
4 of 6
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
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.10,000/- each 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 (b) which reads
thus:-
“(b) This Hon’ble Court to pleased to exercise its power under
Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, and thereby quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing
C.R. No. 153 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 registered at
5 of 6
143.APL.1689.2026.doc
Junnar Police Station, Dist.: Pune Rural, for the offences
punishable u/S. 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and
61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as the
Chargesheet bearing no. 115 of 2026 and the subsequent
proceedings arising out of R.C.C. No. 391 of 2026 pending
before the Ld. JMFC Court, Junnar, Dist.: Pune, and
consequently discharge the Applicants/Accused from the
charges levelled against them.”
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
15:02:11 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…