ABHINAV PRANNATH SHARMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                       94.APL.663.2024.doc

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


                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.663 OF 2024

              Abhinav Prannath Sharma                          .. Applicant
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                .. Respondents
                                          ....................
               Mr. Harshwardhan Milind Pawar, Advocate i/by Satyam Harshad
                Nimbalkar for Applicant.
               Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 -State.
               Mr. Siddharth Sutaria, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
                                            ...................

                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.       Heard Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms.

              Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Sutaria,

              learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.


              2.       This is an Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

              Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of First Information

              Report arising out of C.R. No.555 of 2023 registered with Hinjewadi

              Police Station for offences punishable under Section 307 and 34 of the

              Indian Penal Code, 1860.


              3.       Both the parties before me are young offenders. While

              playing cricket they had a squabble which led to the unfortunate

              incident. Though the charge is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal

              Code, 1860, in my opinion, after hearing the learned Advocates and


                                                                                   1 of 7
                                                       94.APL.663.2024.doc


perusing the record, it would be appropriate if the criminal

proceedings are quashed so that both the parties can be free to live

their own lives freely without the ignominy of the criminal

proceedings.


4.       Ms. Talhar would persuade the Court to consider the

grievousness of the injury which has been caused but since the same

has been caused on the spur of the moment in view of the cricket

incident while both parties were playing cricket, though I have

considered the same, I am still inclined to accept the submissions made

by the learned Advocates for both parties i.e. Applicant and

Complainant before me and allow the present Application. Consent

affidavit of Complainant is at page Nos.18 and 22 which is perused by

the Court. Parties are appearing through Video Conferencing and I

have interacted with them. They are all young adults and deserve to be

given a chance.


5.       Vakalatnama of Advocate on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and

3 shall be accepted by the Registry within a period of two weeks from

today.


6.       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


                                                                   2 of 7
                                                            94.APL.663.2024.doc


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.


7.           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.


8.           In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        3 of 7
                                                       94.APL.663.2024.doc


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”.


9.       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

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                          94.APL.663.2024.doc


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.


10.       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.


11.       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



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                             94.APL.663.2024.doc


parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.

Hence, Applicants is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- 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 two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

All Applicant agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


12.       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 clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-


          “a.   This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
                bearing C.R. No. 555/2023, against the present Applicant
                registered with Hinjewadi Police Station dated 25/04/23 offences
                punishable 307, 34 of the I.P.C. lodged by Respondent No.2 .”



13.       List the Application for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.



                                                                          6 of 7
                                                                                   94.APL.663.2024.doc


                     14.               Advocate in Application shall remain present and show

                     compliance on behalf of Applicant on the returnable date for

                     compliance. If Advocate for Applicant 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 Applicants/parties

                     to Application.


                     15.               Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.



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




                    Digitally signed
                    by HARSHADA
           HARSHADA HANUMANT
           HANUMANT SAWANT
           SAWANT   Date:
                    2026.09.12
                    18:07:30 +0530




                                                                                               7 of 7