HITANSHU BHIMSEN BAGGAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                              68. APL 254-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2026

                      Hitanshu Bhimsen Bagga                           .Applicant

                                  Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                  .Respondents
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              Mr. Marmik Shah a/w. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Ruchita Chavan i/b. India
SUDAME                Law LLP, Advocates, for the Applicant
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR        Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.22
21:24:22 +0530
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE     : 18.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Applicant and

                      Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State.

                      2.      The present Application seeks quashing of the FIR No. 354 of

                      2021 dated 16.06.2021 filed by the First Informant/Complainant for

                      cheating and under Sections 4 & 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats

                      (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and

                      Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”) against the Applicant.

                      3.      Learned Counsel for the Applicant persuades the Court to

                      consider the parties having arrived at a settlement namely MOU dated

                      18.01.2022, copy of which is appended at page No. 24 (Exh.B) to the

                      Petition. I have perused the same with the able assistance of learned

                      Anand                             1 of 7
                                                        68. APL 254-2026.doc

Counsel for the Applicant. By virtue of the said MOU, the entire

amount which was received from the Complainant has been paid back

to the Complainant and over and above that an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- has been paid. It is seen that there are three Accused

persons in the present matter. Accused No. 2 has expired. Accused No.

3 is before the Court. He is the son of Accused No. 2. Learned Counsel

for the Applicant draws my attention to the Clause 2 of the terms and

conditions of the MOU appended at Exh. B which prima facie states

that the Complainant/First Informant has agreed to file Affidavit and

give statement before the concerned Police Station in C. R. No. 354 of

2021 which is the present C.R. to have withdrawn all his grievances

unconditionally against the Accused Nos. 2 & 3 qua the subject flat in

question namely B/702. The said MOU records that he has received

Rs.26,00,000/- and the declaration is so given by him wherein once

again in Clause 3 of the said declaration at page No. 28, he clarifies

that he undertakes not to proceed with any Criminal, Civil or other

proceedings against the Accused Nos. 2 & 3.

4.      In that view of the matter, in view of the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi

and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 decided on 10.04.2017,

partial quashing is permissible.



Anand                              2 of 7
                                                      68. APL 254-2026.doc

5.      The Criminal Application stands allowed.

6.      The FIR qua the Applicant before me, who is arraigned as

Accused No. 3 stands quashed and set aside.

7.      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.

8.      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

1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                             3 of 7
                                                         68. APL 254-2026.doc

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.


9.      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”.


10.     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

Anand                                4 of 7
                                                        68. APL 254-2026.doc

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.


11.     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


Anand                              5 of 7
                                                         68. APL 254-2026.doc

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.


12.     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 Applicant, should pay costs. Hence,

Applicant is 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 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


Anand                               6 of 7
                                                               68. APL 254-2026.doc

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 two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

The Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocate

agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


13.     In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to

be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so

allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

           “a)   Quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 354 of 2021 dated
                 16.06.2021 registered under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and
                 Section 4 and 5 of the MOFA registered with Nayanagar Police
                 Station, the Final report form/chargesheet bearing No. 164 of
                 2022 and all proceedings arising therefrom, qua the Applicant
                 herein, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as
                 recorded in writing in the MoU dated 18.01.2022.”

14.     List the Criminal Application for compliance of the order

regarding payment of costs on 05.10.2026.


15.     Advocate for the Applicant shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the Applicant on the returnable date for

compliance. If he does 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 Applicant.


16.     Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.

                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)


Anand                                  7 of 7