DEEPAK SATYAWAN KUDALKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTR AND ANR

                                                                      64-APL-692-25.doc

rsk

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.692 OF 2025

      Deepak Satyawan Kudalkar And Ors                          .. Applicants
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                         .. Respondents

                                   ....................
       Ms. Neha Rane h/f. Mr. Prasad Panchal, Advocates for Applicants.
       Mr. Amit Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No.1 - State.
       Mr. Jigar Aggarwal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                      ...................

                                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                     DATE          : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Ms. Neha Rane, learned Advocate for applicants; Mr.

      Mundhe, learned APP for Respondent No.1– State and Mr. Aggarwal,

      learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


      2.      This Application is filed under Section 482/528 of the

      CRPC/BNSS by parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the

      able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and

      learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find

      it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of

      brevity.


      3.      The applicans are indicted for offence of cheating and criminal

      breach of trust. The applicants had taken deposits from 27 investors.

      Monies of all 27 investors have been returned back. 27 affidavits have


                                                                                 1 of 6
                                                         64-APL-692-25.doc


been filed by Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate before me, one affidavit

is in common, hence there are 26 affidavits. I have perused the same.

The complainants have stated that they have received their entire dues

and   there is no further grievance    qua the applicant about their

deposits.


4.          Affidavit dated 11 August 2025 of the Complainant is also

filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on record.

The contents of the said Affidavit prima facie show that the entire

dispute and settlement/ issue now stands resolved and hence

Complainant now wants to put an end to the criminal proceedings.


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 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



                                                                    2 of 6
                                                             64-APL-692-25.doc


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

costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court

by “consent quashing”.
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        3 of 6
                                                        64-APL-692-25.doc


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.


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

                                                                   4 of 6
                                                           64-APL-692-25.doc


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.

Hence, applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- towards the

Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra,

a Special School 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

                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                               64-APL-692-25.doc


                        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 applicants are

                        present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the

                        aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


                        11.              In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to

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

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

                                         “b.   That this Hon'ble may be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R.
                                               I- 0065/2020 lodged with Navghar Police Station dated
                                               04/01/2023 for an offence punishable under section 406, 420
                                               r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of MPID act and
                                               Section 3,4,5,6 of PCMC (Banning) Act against the all the
                                               Applicants/Org. Accused no. 1 - 4 above-named, lodged at the
                                               instance of present Respondent no.2 by exercising its inherent
                                               power as provided under section 482 of the code of criminal
                                               procedure and which currently the proceeding is pending before
                                               the Hon'ble Session Court, 5(th) Thane Session Court in C.C.
                                               321/spl case/2020.”

                        12.              List the Application for compliance of this order on 23rd

                        September 2026.


                        13.              Advocates in Application for applicants shall remain present

                        and show compliance on behalf of all applicants on the returnable date

                        for 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 to Application.

                        14.              Application is allowed and disposed.


rsk                                                                         [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]


                   Digitally signed by
                                                                                                           6 of 6
      AJAY         AJAY TRAMBAK
      TRAMBAK      UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE   Date: 2026.09.03
                   18:39:38 +0530