ANAND CHANDRASHEKHARANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                              146.APL.1747.2026.doc

Ajay

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1747 OF 2026

       Anand Chandrashekharan                              .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                       .. Respondents
                                   ....................
        Mr. R.V. Gupta, Advocate for Applicant.
        Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
        Ms. Sandhya Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                       ......…...........
                                      CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                      DATE       : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.

       P.C.:
       1.         Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

       Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Yadav, learned

       Advocate for Respondent No.2.

       2.         The lis between the parties was on account of an accident

       caused due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in actual injury to

       the Complainant.

       3.         The learned Advocate informs the Court that conviction has

       already occurred. Notwithstanding that he persuades the Court to

       consider the present Application for consent quashing. I have perused

       the consent Affidavit of Complainant. Adequate compensation as

       stated therein post-conviction and the fine has already been paid.

       Applicant has further agreed to give consent for withdrawal of the

       amount of compensation which is deposited before the Trial Court. In



                                                                            1 of 5
                                                          146.APL.1747.2026.doc


the background by accepting the consent Affidavit of Complainant and

on his request, the Application stands allowed.

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

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 5
                                                        146.APL.1747.2026.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 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

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

                                                                      3 of 5
                                                        146.APL.1747.2026.doc


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

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

                                                                      4 of 5
                                                                                               146.APL.1747.2026.doc


                                 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 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.5,000/- 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. Applicant is present before this Court and

                                 through his learned Advocate agrees 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 read

                                 thus:-

                                           “a)   That judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.03.2023
                                                 passed in C.C. No. 59/PS/2008 by Ld. J.M.F.C., 53 rd Court at
                                                 Mulund, Mumbai may please be quashed and set aside.”

                                 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
              18:40:47 +0530
                                                                                                                 5 of 5