Bombay High Court

NINAD ANIL KADAM AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 8 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court allowed the application, quashed the FIR with respect to the applicants, and imposed costs of Rs.15,000 on them.

Summary

The applicants were accused of cheating the complainant by accepting deposits for higher returns, but the complainant later returned the money and consented that the amounts were received. Both parties jointly sought to quash FIR No. 851 of 2026 on the ground that the dispute was civil/commercial and there was no prima facie case. The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 528 of the BNSS, referring to the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs. It held that, while the offence was not heinous, the Court may quash the FIR by consent but may impose costs to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the application was allowed, the FIR was quashed for the applicants, and they were directed to pay Rs.15,000 to a charitable trust.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR for cheating can be quashed by consent of the parties under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS.
Whether the Court may impose costs on the applicants in a consent quashing proceeding.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482

Subjects

quash FIR
Section 482
Section 528
consent quashing
costs in criminal proceedings
cheating
inherent powers of High Court
abuse of process

Judgment

166.APL.1814.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1814 OF 2026

Ninad Anil Kadam And Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Parth Sanjay Govilkar a/w. Mr. Pratham R. Jain, Advocates for
Applicants.
 Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
 Mr. Shrijeet Raorane, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 PSI - Ms. Rupali Sanap, Chembur Police Station present.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:

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

Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Raorane, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. The complaint came to be filed in view of an offense of

cheating pertaining to certain amounts deposited by the Complainant

with the Applicants for higher returns, for higher returns. Part of the

amount was already returned back to to the Complainant. The

remaining amount has also been returned as informed by the parties.

The Consent Affidavit of the Complainant is at page No.21 wherein the

Complainant confirms that payments have been fructified and

received. All parties are present before the Court, I have interacted

with them in the able assistance of the learned Advocates.

1 of 6
166.APL.1814.2026.doc

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 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

1 1992 AIR 604

2 of 6
166.APL.1814.2026.doc

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

against vexatious litigation. This is because after criminal machinery

is set into motion, the Police Department is forced to take cognizance,

3 of 6
166.APL.1814.2026.doc

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

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

4 of 6
166.APL.1814.2026.doc

at large while considering consent quashing.

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

case, I am of the opinion that the Applicant for his 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.15,000/- 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, 3rd 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 2 weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

Applicants through his learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity.

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

to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. At

the request of parties, it is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b’

5 of 6
166.APL.1814.2026.doc

which read thus:-

“b. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash FIR

No. 851 of 2026 registered with Chembur Police

Station Mumbai, insofar as the present Applicants are

concerned.”

10. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 22nd October 2026.

11. Advocate in Application for Applicants shall remain present

and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date

for compliance. If learned Advocate for Applicants 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 Application.

12. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:59:13 +0530

6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.