Bombay High Court
ANKIT HARENDRA KUMAR GOSALIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The consent‑quashing application is allowed, the proceedings are quashed, and the applicant is ordered to pay costs.
Summary
The applicant and the complainant, both bullion traders, settled a commercial dispute involving Rs.6.52 crore and sought to have the criminal proceedings initiated in 2019 quashed by consent. The complainant filed an affidavit of consent, and the court considered the applicability of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR for offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that non‑heinous offences arising from civil or commercial disputes may be quashed if it serves the interests of justice. The court allowed the consent quashing application, ordered the applicant to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to the Bar Council’s Advocate Aid Fund, and disposed of the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for offences under Sections 409, 420 and 34 IPC can be quashed by consent under Section 482 CRPC/Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the court may impose costs on the applicant in a consent‑quashing matter.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 409, 420
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- costs order
- commercial dispute settlement
- high court inherent powers
Judgment
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1730 OF 2026
Ankit Harendra Kumar Gosalia .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. P.K. Sanghrajka, Advocate i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for
Applicant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Reeti Upadhyay a/w. Ms. Archismati Chandramore, Vaazishta
Pardiwala, Ms. Srusthi Dhawale, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sanghrajka, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.
Rao, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Upadhyay,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. The parties are both before me. Applicant appears online on
VC whereas the Complainant is physically present in Court. They both
are engaged in the business of trading bullion and marketing jewellry
and have deep roots in India as well as extended family living in India.
Due to a dispute between them with regard to business transactions an
amount of Rs.6.52 crores remaining unpaid and therefore the present
complaint came to be filed in the year 2019.
3. Both parties have now reconciled their lis and exchanged
money and are now desirous of putting an end to the criminal
1 of 6
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
proceedings and prosecution because it affects their business prospects
as well as their livelihood. Affidavit of consent is filed by Respondent
No.2 - Complainant which prima facie states that the parties have
known each other otherwise for a very long time and belong to the
same community and have had dealings with regard to their business
with each other.
4. The Complainant states that Section 138 of proceedings were
also initiated with regard to the present issue and now since a
compromise and amicable settlement has occurred, those proceedings
have been withdrawn. He therefore desires to withdraw the present
proceedings. His consent Affidavit dated 11.09.2026 is taken on
record. After having interacted with both the parties and after hearing
the submissions of the learned Advocates, in view of the request made
and in view of the nature of the dispute, I am inclined to accept the
request made and allow the Application.
5. 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
2 of 6
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
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.
6. 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
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.
7. 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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 6
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
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”.
8. 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
4 of 6
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to
humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
9. 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
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.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, I am of the opinion that the Applicant for his action resulting in
the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant should pay costs.
Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to Account
Name: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund; Bank
5 of 6
145.APL.1730.2026.doc
Name: State Bank of India; Branch Name: Mumbai Main Branch;
Account No.10996711937; IFS Code: SBIN0000300 and Type of
Account: Savings Account. Applicant is present through VC and
through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount
as directed.
11. 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 clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which
read thus:-
“a) quash the proceedings of C.R. No. 77 of 2019 registered with
the Economic Offence Wing, Unit-I, Mumbai (originally C.R.
No. 275 of 2019 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police
Station), for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
including the police report filed in pursuance thereof vide
C.C. No. 421/PW/2024 pending before the Ld. Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai,
and all proceedings arising therefrom, on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just;
b) quash and set aside the Look Out Circular and any Red
Corner Notice issued against the Applicant arising from C.R.
No. 77 of 2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing,
Unit-I, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 275 of 2019 registered
with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station), for the offences
punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, together with the consequent
criminal case No. 421/PW/2024 pending before the Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade,
Mumbai, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and just.”
12. 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
18:19:43 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…