Bombay High Court
RAGHUNATH SOPANRAO DABHADE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet and ordered the applicants to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs to a charitable trust.
Summary
The applicants and the complainant, who were friends and neighbours, had a monetary dispute that escalated at the applicants' Chinese Hotel, resulting in the applicants striking the complainant with a stick and causing injuries. Both parties later reconciled, and the complainant consented to the quashing of the FIR. The court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the analogous Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considered the settlement, the non‑heinous nature of the offence, and relevant jurisprudence (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal). It allowed the petition to quash the FIR and the charge‑sheet, but imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the applicants to be paid to a charitable trust. The order was entered, and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on the consent of the parties in a non‑heinous offence.
- Whether the court should impose costs on the applicants in a consent‑quash order.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 118(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act, 1950
- Society Registration Act, 1980
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- consent quash
- inherent powers of High Court
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- non‑heinous offence
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of private dispute
Judgment
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1911 OF 2026
Raghunath Sopanrao Dabhade And Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar, Advocate i/by Mr. Abhishek Ulhas
Arote for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No.1.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for Applicant and
Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1.
2. The parties have reconciled their disputes which had arisen
on account of certain amounts which were due and payable to the
Complainant which were not returned by the Applicants. It is seen that
the Complainant demanded the said amounts in the business
establishment namely Chinese Hotel of the Applicants and had
committed a ruckus due to which the Applicants got incensed and
picked up a stick lying nearby and inflicted a blow on the head of the
head and the arm of the Complainant which led to the filing of the
offense in question. Both the parties are known to each other and are
friends and have business relationship. Infact after the incident had
occurred, the Applicant himself took the Complainant to the took the
1 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
Complainant for medical treatment. Both the parties have approached
the court for quashing the FIR since they interested to pursue
respective live and propositions. Parties don’t have any antecedents
and are infact, neighbors.
3. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to consider the
request made by the parties for quashing. Affidavit of consent of the
Complainant dated 08.06.2026 is filed and taken on record wherein
the Complainant has expressed no objection for quashing on his own
solemn affirmation. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case,
and notwithstanding the injury which has occurred which was not pre-
mediated and happened on the spur of the moment in view of the
scuffle that ensued between the parties, I am inclined to accept the
request for quashing and allow the Petition.
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
2 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
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 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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
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
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.
4 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
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
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 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
5 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
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.
10. 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 ‘a’
which read thus:-
“a) Invoke the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and quash
and set aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 713
of 2025, registered on 17.12.2025 with Wagholi Police station,
Pune City under section 118(2), 3(5), 351(2),352 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Chargesheet bearing no. 65
of 2026, filed on 02.03.2026 before the Court of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court Room No. 06, Shivaji
Nagar, Pune, under the said sections, and all subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on such terms and conditions as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ”
11. Registry directed to accept the vakalatnama of Advocate Mr.
Siddharth Karia on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 / Complainant
within a period of four weeks from today.
12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
6 of 7
171.APL.1911.2026.doc
payment of costs on 23rd October 2026.
13. 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.
14. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.10.10
13:00:04 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…