Bombay High Court
ASHUTOSH KUMAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the applications, quashing the criminal proceedings, subject to the payment of costs.
Summary
The applicants, Manoj Patel and Ashutosh Kumar, sought quashing of criminal proceedings filed under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 34 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Both parties had settled their private dispute, and the complainant executed a consent affidavit stating that his claims were fully satisfied. The Court examined the scope of Section 482, referring to the Bhajan Lal guidelines, and concluded that the offences were not heinous and the settlement justified quashing. It also ordered the applicants to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs to a charitable NGO to deter misuse of criminal law. Consequently, the applications were allowed and the proceedings were dismissed subject to the cost order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the FIR and charge sheet on the basis of consent under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the offences alleged are of a nature that permits quashing despite being non‑compoundable.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the applicants in a consent‑quashing petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482
- high court inherent powers
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of disputes
- non‑heinous offences
- MPID Act
- IPC offences
Judgment
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2025
Manoj Jadavbhai Patel .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2024
Ashutosh Kumar & Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Bharat K. Manghani a/w Ms. Drushti Gala, Mr. Durren Kaskar &
Mr. Paresh Joshi, Advocates for Applicant in APL 18/2025
Mr. Ashok Bhatia, Advocate for Applicant in 379 of 2024
Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for State
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar & Ms. Monika Ashutosh Kumar present
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Manghani, learned Advocate for Applicant in APL
18/2025; Mr. Bhatia, learned Advocate for Applicant in APL 18/2025
& Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for State.
2. Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025 is filed under the
provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing and setting aside the chargesheet /
criminal proceedings registered at the instance of Respondent 2
1 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
against the Applicants arising out of C.R. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B.
C.I.D. Property Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999.
3. Both the Applicants are filed under the provisions of Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") for
quashing and setting aside the chargesheet / criminal proceedings
registered at the instance of Respondent 2 against the Applicants
arising out of C.R. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B. C.I.D. Property Cell for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection
of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
4. Parties have requested the Court to consider both the Criminal
Applications for consent quashing. Charges against the Applicants
were for cheating and forgery and other allied offences with regard to
exchange of monies between the parties. Parties have reconciled all
their differences and disputes and have already filed Consent Terms
dated 12.02.2024 in Criminal Application No. 379 of 2024. I have
interacted with the complainant on video call. He has stated in his
2 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
consent affidavit that he has received all his claim and given his
consent to purge the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings in Special
Case No. 1934/2023 He has also stated that his entire claim has been
fully satisfied and he has no further grievance with regard to any
claim. In view of the said consent affidavit dated 21.08.2026 which is
appended at page No. 262 of Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025 and
Consent Terms dated 12.02.2024, I am inclined to accede to the
request made by learned Advocates appearing at the Bar and
determine the present Applications accordingly.
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 Cr.P.C.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
3 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
Cr.P.C. 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 furthered 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
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
1 1992 AIR 604
4 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
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 way such
matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous
pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
5 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
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 Applicants for their actions resulting in the
complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties
seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.
Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/-to Anand Mangal
Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of
uploading of this order. Applicants are present in Court and through
6 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
their learned Advocatse agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the
charity.
11. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at
the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment,
sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized
women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime
care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by
livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in
rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care
access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at
present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete
healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual
disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha
for payment of costs are as under:-
Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra
Account Number: 60434381304
IFSC Code: MAHB0002075
MICR Code: 423014102
Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.
Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,
7 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga
Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,
Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.
12. In view of the above matter, the present Applications deserves to
be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is
so allowed in terms of prayer clause "a" in both the Applicants which
read thus:-
"Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025:-
“a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set
aside Charge Sheet/Criminal Proceedings registered at the
instance of the Respondent no. 2, against the Applicant arising
out of Cr. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B. C.I.D. Property Cell for the
offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
and Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4
of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In
Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
Criminal Application No. 379 of 2024:-
“a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R.No. 53/2023 filed
by DCB CID, property cell unit, Byculla, arising from F.I.R. No.
385/2023 dated 20.7.23 filed by Versova Police Station and
investigated by the Respondent No.1, registered at the instance of
Ramkumar Dadhich and others, namely Manalal Gurjar,
Purshottam Phagana, Seduram Meena, Babulal Meghwal, as
investors, in respect of offence u/s 406, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C and
u/s 3,4 of MPID Act, 1999."
13. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 15.09.2026.
14. Advocates for Applicants shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date for
8 of 9
57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt
compliance. If they do 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.
15. Both the Applications are allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.01
14:58:16
+0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…