Bombay High Court
CURSINO JUDE AGNELO CASTELLINOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court, exercising its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, allowed the consent quashing of the FIR and charge‑sheet and imposed costs on the applicants.
Summary
The petitioners sought consent quashing of FIR No.19/2026 and the accompanying charge‑sheet relating to cheque‑dishonour allegations arising from a land transaction, after the parties reached an amicable settlement. Both applicants filed separate criminal applications before the Bombay High Court, which considered the complainant’s affidavit requesting quashment and the settlement agreement. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the offences were not heinous and the settlement justified quashing. The Court also imposed costs of Rs.15,000 on each applicant to deter misuse of criminal law for private settlements. Consequently, both applications were allowed, the FIR and charge‑sheet were set aside, and the matters were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR and charge‑sheet by consent under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNS/Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the nature of the offence (non‑heinous, commercial dispute) permits quashing despite being non‑compoundable.
- Whether costs may be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing to prevent abuse of criminal process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 528, 61(2), 62
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- consent quashing
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 528 BNS
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- settlement of civil dispute
- costs
- cheque dishonour
- non‑heinous offence
Judgment
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 819 OF 2026
Cursino Jude Angelo Castellino .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1500 OF 2026
Sachin Krishna Mohite .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Sahil Chorpade, Advocates i/by GG
Legal Associates for Applicant in Criminal Application No.819 of
2026.
Mr. Saurabh P. Patil, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application
No.1500 of 2026.
Ms. Neuty Thakkar a/w. Mr. Yash Sheth, Advocates i/by Tushar
Goradia, Advocates for Respondent No.2 in both Applications.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Mentioned at the time of rising. Both learned Advocates
persuade the Court to take up the matters for consent quashing as all
parties are present in Court.
2. Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for Applicant in Criminal
Application No.819 of 2026; Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant
in Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026; Ms. Thakkar, learned
1 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both Applications and Mr.
Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
3. Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026 is not on board. It is
mentioned and taken on board by consent of both parties. Both the
Criminal Applications are disposed of by this order.
4. All parties are before the Court. Learned Advocates jointly
inform Court that the principal dispute pertained to dishonor of
cheques between the parties arising out of a land transaction leading to
filing of FIR. They inform that the entire lis / dispute now stands
amicably settled and resolved as contended by the Complainant who is
common in both the Applications. His Affidavit dated 09.09.2026 is
placed before me and I have perused the same. In paragraph Nos.10
and 11, he has stated as under:-
“10. I respectfully state in view of the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties, I do not desire to prosecute the criminal
proceedings against the Applicant any further and believe that
continuation of such proceedings would not serve any useful
purpose.
11. I, therefore, respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to allow the accompanying Criminal Application and
quash C.R. No. 19 of 2026 registered with Chunabhatti Police
Station, Mumbai, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all
consequential proceedings against the Applicant .”
5. There are two accused persons in the present case, hence 2
Criminal Applications are filed separately before the Court in the same
crime. Considering the consent Affidavits filed by Complainant and
most importantly the settlement agreement having been appended
2 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
thereto, the wish of the parties deserve to be allowed since the parties
desire to move on in their lives without the ignominy of the criminal
prosecution / proceedings.
6. In that view of the matter, I find no reason as to why both
Applications should not be allowed so that the parties can proceed.
7. 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.
8. 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
3 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.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.
9. 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”.
10. 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
4 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
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.
11. 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
5 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
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.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, I am of the opinion that the Applicants for his action resulting in
the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, Applicants should pay costs.
Hence, both the Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/-
each to Account Name : Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate
Aid Fund, Bank Name : State Bank of India, Branch Name : Mumbai
main branch, Account Number : 10996711937, IFSC Code :
SBIN0000300, Type of Account : Saving A/c, within a period of two
weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicants are present
in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the
aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
13. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.819 of 2026
stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-
“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
entire consequent proceedings emanating from the F.I.R.
6 of 7
59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc
vide CR No.19/2026 dated 09.01.2026 registered with
Chunabhatti Police Station u/s 316(2), 318(3), 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 against
above-named Applicants, lodged at the instance of
present Respondent no. 2 namely Prince Dhaaramchand
Surana by exercising its inherent power as provided
section 528 of the BNSS.”
14. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026
stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-
“A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
FIR No. 19 of 2026 registered by the Chunabhatti Police
Station on 09/01/2026 along with the chargesheet under
Sections 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2),
61(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023, against the Applicant.”
15. In view of the above, both Criminal Applications are
disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.12
15:49:30 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…