BHARATH PRAVEEN CHAND DARAM @ BHARAT RAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                               85.APL.787.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 787 OF 2026

       Bharath Praveen Chand Daram @ Bharat Rao           .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      .. Respondents

                             ....................
        Mr. Narayan Rokade a/w. Ms. Sheetal Kunjir, Advocates for
         Applicant.
        Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                    ......…...........

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

       P.C.:

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

       Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Wagh,

       learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


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

       Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside the First

       Information Report (FIR)/C.R.No. 0194 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024

       registered at Pen Police Station, District Raigad against Applicant for

       the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian

       Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


       3.       It is submitted that the parties have settled the dispute with

       regard to the issue of payment of Rs.3,61,000 [Rupees Three Lakhs

                                                                           1 of 7
                                                        85.APL.787.2026.doc


Sixty One Thousand] and have reconciled the dispute. The

Complainant has received the said amount. Affidavit dated 24.04.2026

is filed by the Complainant and it is taken on record. Today, the parties

are present in Court. They both persuade the Court to quash the

criminal proceedings.


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

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 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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                    2 of 7
                                                          85.APL.787.2026.doc


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

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



                                                                      3 of 7
                                                       85.APL.787.2026.doc


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.


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

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                          85.APL.787.2026.doc


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 complaint 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.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand

only) to    a   charity   /   charitable   organization   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.


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



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                            85.APL.787.2026.doc


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.


11.       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 ‘b’ which reads thus:-

          “b) Quash and set-aside FIR lodged at Pen Police Station bearing FIR
          No. 0194/2024 dated 26 June 2024, registered at Pen Police Station
          Dist: Raigad, against Applicant under Section 420, 34 of the Indian
          Penal Code by consent of respondent no. 2 qua only present
          Applicant.”


                                                                        6 of 7
                                                                                             85.APL.787.2026.doc


                                    12.       Department / Registry is directed to accept the Vakalatnama

                                    on behalf of Complainant/Respondent No.2. Advocate for Respondent

                                    No.2 is directed to file his Vakalatnama within a period of two weeks

                                    from today.


                                    13.       List the Criminal Application for compliance of the order

                                    regarding payment of costs on 11th September 2026.


                                    14.       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.


                                    15.       Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.



                                                                               [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

       Ajay
              Digitally signed by
AJAY       AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01
              14:45:49 +0530




                                                                                                         7 of 7