Bombay High Court
PRABHAT KUMAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR and dismissed the criminal proceedings, finding that the settlement and lack of prima facie case justified the exercise of its inherent powers.
Summary
The applicants, staff of a regional branch, were charged in an FIR (CR No. 222 of 2024) for offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC. The complainant and the applicants later reconciled, and the money taken from depositors was returned after recovery from an insurance company. Both parties consented to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS, examined the precedent set in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Finding no prima facie case and noting the parties' settlement, the Court allowed the application and ordered the FIR to be quashed, disposing of the matter without awarding costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the basis of mutual consent and settlement of the dispute.
- Whether the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 528 of BNSS) are applicable to dismiss the criminal proceedings.
- Whether offences listed, including non‑compoundable ones, may be quashed in the interest of justice.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- quash FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- settlement
- non‑compoundable offences
- high court inherent powers
- criminal procedure
Judgment
63.APL.798.2024.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 798 OF 2024
Prabhat Kumar and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Karan Bhosale a/w. Mr. Siddharth Chavan, Mr. Prasad
Mhamunkar, Mr. Harsh Sawant, Advocates i/by NDB Law for
Applicants.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Ajinkya Udane a/w. Ms. Teena Kapoor, Advocates for
Respondent.
PSI – A.R. Sayyed, Manmad City Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Udane, learned
Advocate for Respondent.
2. The parties have reconciled their disputes and differences
and seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR). The
complaint was lodged against the staff of the Regional Branch who are
the Applicants before me. Mr. Udane, learned Advocate appears for the
First Informant–Complainant.
1 of 3
63.APL.798.2024.doc
3. Affidavits of consent are appended at pages 56 and 61 of the
Application. I have perused the same. Mr. Bhosale informs the Court
that the amount received from the depositors has been received back
from the Insurance Company and has now been paid to the concerned
depositors. In view of the same, the parties have decided by consent to
quash the criminal proceedings. I accept their request.
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 Lal1 the Supreme Court laid
down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 3
63.APL.798.2024.doc
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 view of the above, there can be no impediment to
allowing the present Criminal Application. Accordingly, the Criminal
Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which reads as
follows:-
“b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
the FIR/ CR No. 222 of 2024 dated 26th May 2024 along
with the R.C.C. no. 77 of 2026 dated 23 rd March, 2026
lodged with Manmad Police Station under Section 406,
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) read with section 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with any other
proceedings/ applications filed in the present matter as
against the Applicants.”
7. In view of the above, Criminal Application is disposed.
8. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.19
14:00:41 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…