KAMLESH KEDARNATH RAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                     127. APL-790-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 790 OF 2026

           Kamlesh Kedarnath Rai                            .. Applicant
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. Rishi Bhuta a/w Ms. Saakshi Jha, Advocates for Applicant
            Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for State
            Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
                                          ...................
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                         DATE          : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Bhuta, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Nakhwa,

           learned APP for State and Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 3.


           2.       Present Application is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

           Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the chargesheet in

           C.R. No. 578/2025 registered with the MIDC Police Station under

           Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the

           proceedings pending on the files of the Ld. Addl. Chief JMFC, XXII

           Court, Andheri vide C.C. No. 3721/PW/2025.


           3.       Parties before the Court run a hotel business together.        Mr.

           Bhuta would submit that on the basis of hand loan of 5 Lakhs

           exchanged between the parties, the return and reciprocation of the


                                                                                 1 of 7
                                                       127. APL-790-26.odt


said sum was not done and FIR was lodged and Applicant was

apprehended on the ground of extortion.        However it is seen that

Immediately three days thereafter, Complainant approached the

concerned Magistrate and filed an affidavit to the effect of

reconciliation of their differences and both parties in fact been

business partners and running the       hotel business establishment

together.


4.    Consent affidavit dated 15.04.2026 of Complainant is filed

before me. Both parties are present before Court. I have interacted

with them. I prima facie find that whatever may have happened, it

should not now come in their way of they doing business together and

therefore, at the request made by both parties, I am inclined to allow

the present Application by consent quashing.


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

                                                                   2 of 7
                                                          127. APL-790-26.odt


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.


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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                      3 of 7
                                                        127. APL-790-26.odt


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”.


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


                                                                    4 of 7
                                                        127. APL-790-26.odt


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 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 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. 10,000/- towards the Corpus

of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, vocational

                                                                    5 of 7
                                                              127. APL-790-26.odt


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.


11.   Applicant is present in Court and through his Advocates agree to

pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two

weeks from today.


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 clause (c) which reads thus:-

          “c .   That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
                 Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the chargesheet in C.R. No.
                 578/2025 registered with the MIDC Police Station under Section
                 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the proceedings
                 pending on the files of the Ld. Addl. Chief JMFC, XXII Court,
                 Andheri vide C.C. No. 3721/PW/2025 on such terms and
                 conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper"



13.     List the Application for compliance of the order on 16th

October, 2026.



                                                                          6 of 7
                                                                    127. APL-790-26.odt


           14.     Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show

           compliance on that date. 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.


           15.     Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.




Amberkar                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                     Digitally
                     signed by
                     RAVINDRA
            RAVINDRA MOHAN
            MOHAN    AMBERKAR
            AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.15
                     15:51:48
                     +0530




                                                                                7 of 7