Bombay High Court
SURESH JEEVRAJ RAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the application, quashing FIR No.1114/2025 under Section 528 BNSS, subject to the applicant paying costs of Rs.25,000 to the specified NGO.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash FIR No.1114 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, evidenced by a Consent Terms document and an Affidavit‑cum‑NOC, and the complainant had already taken possession of the disputed property. The Court examined its inherent power under Section 528 (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and relied on the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs, noting that non‑heinous offences arising from civil or commercial disputes may be set aside. It held that while the FIR could be quashed, costs should be imposed to deter misuse of criminal law and compensate public resources. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, quashed the FIR, and ordered the applicant to pay Rs.25,000 to a charitable NGO, directing compliance by a specified date.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.
- Whether the offences alleged under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) BNS are non‑heinous and thus amenable to quashment.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the applicant in a consent‑quashing application to deter abuse of criminal process.
- The scope and exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 (and analogous Section 482 CrPC) in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(5), 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quashment
- consent quashing
- inherent powers
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CrPC
- settlement
- costs
- non‑heinous offence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
84.APL.655.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 655 OF 2026
Suresh Jeevraj Rawal .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shantanu Mishra a/w. Mr. Akshay Shetty (through VC),
Advocates i/by AVC and Associates for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Prathamesh Vhanmane, Advocate for Respondent No.2 – First
Informant.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Vhanmane,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – First Informant.
2. This is an Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash and set aside
the First Information Report (FIR)/C.R.No. 1114 of 2025 dated
18.10.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the
said FIR, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 28 th Court
at Esplanade, Mumbai which was duly registered with the L.T. Marg
Police Station at the instance of the First Informant under Sections
318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
1 of 7
84.APL.655.2026.doc
3. The parties have reconciled their disputes and filed necessary
documents. There are two specific documents on record. One is
Consent Terms which are filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class First Class, Esplanade, Mumbai dated 27.10.2025 and the
Affidavit-cum-NOC dated 23.03.2026 in the present Application, copies
of the same are appended at page Nos.26 and 29 of the Application
respectively. It is seen that Applicant has already given possession of
the immovable property situated in Rajasthan to the Complainant and
the Complainant has received it. The joint Consent Terms give primacy
to the said settlement. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to
accept the Affidavit-cum-NOC which is filed by the Complainant and
allow the present Application.
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
2 of 7
84.APL.655.2026.doc
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 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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
84.APL.655.2026.doc
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
84.APL.655.2026.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 Applicant should pay costs.
Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty
Five Thousand Only) to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within
a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order.
Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree
to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
5 of 7
84.APL.655.2026.doc
10. 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,
Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga
Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,
Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.
6 of 7
84.APL.655.2026.doc
11. In view of the above, 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 reads thus:-
“(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke its inherent powers
and be pleased to quash and set aside the First Information
Report (FIR) bearing No. 1114 of 2025, dated October 18, 2025,
registered with the L.T. Marg Police Station for the alleged
offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with all consequential and
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the
amicable settlement and the Consent Terms executed between
the parties and placed on record.”
12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 11th September 2026.
13. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of 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/parties in Application.
14. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01
14:47:16 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…