NIRAJ RAJARAM MOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                APL.979.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 979 OF 2026

       Niraj Rajaram More                               .. Applicant
             Versus
       The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                .. Respondents

                                ....................
        Mr. Arjun Pawar a/w. Mr. Shrikant Patil, Mr. Swapnil Pawar and
         Mr. Rohan Bhondave, Advocates for Applicant.
        Ms. Sangeeta Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Mr. Gaurav D. Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No.2
        Mr. Satyam A. Surana, appointed as Amicus Curiae.
                                 ......…...........
                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                   DATE     : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.

       P.C.:
       1.       Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms. Phad

       learned APP for Respondent No.1 - State, Mr. Kakade, learned

       Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Surana, learned Amicus Curiae

       appointed by the Court.

       2.       Present Application is filed under Section 528 of the

       Bharatiya Nagrik Surakshana Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)seeking

       to quash and set aside First Information Report / Crime No.637 of

       2023 dated 30.09.2023 registered with Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri

       Chinchwad, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

       148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

       short “IPC”) read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.



                                                                          1 of 9
                                                          APL.979.2026.doc


3.        Briefly stated, it is prosecution’s case that on 28.09.2023

Ganesh Visarjan procession was organised by one Sudhir Bhagwan

More (Complainant) from Vitthal Ruhkmini Housing Society to Chikali.

During the procession a quarrel broke out between two groups of

persons dancing in the procession which was immediately resolved by

Respondent No.2 – Complainant.

3.1.      The next day i.e. on 29.09.2023, Respondent No.2 –

Complainant received a phone call from one Kishore who abused him

and asked him to come to Narayan Housing Society, Morwasti, Chikali.

Complainant left his home and proceeded to Narayan Housing Society,

Morwasti, Chikali where he met Applicant along with Kishore and one

Yash Jadhav standing on the road. When Complainant approached

them, they began hurling abuses at Complainant regarding the

previous day’s dispute and inflicted fist and kick blows upon him.

3.2.      Thereafter, several persons assaulted Respondent No.2 –

Complainant and when he raised an alarm, Applicant took out a pistol

and threatened to kill Respondent No.2 – Complainant however due to

the scuffle a large crowd began to gather and therefore the assaulters

fled and Respondent No.2 – Complainant. However was taken to

hospital by his friend for medical treatment. On 30.09.2023,

Respondent No.2 – Complainant lodged FIR being CR No.637 of 2023

at Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune for offences

punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) of

                                                                     2 of 9
                                                          APL.979.2026.doc


IPC and Sections 3 read with 25 of Arms Act against Applicant and

other persons. Applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application before

District and Sessions Court, Pune which came to be rejected. Applicant

challenged the same before this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application

No.3136 of 2023, which was allowed by order dated 04.11.2023.

4.         Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit

that none of the ingredients of any of the Sections of IPC invoked

against him are fulfilled, therefore they cannot be applied against him.

He would submit that Complainant was aware that Applicant

possessed a licensed pistol and therefore has levelled false accusations

in the FIR against Applicant.

5.         Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 –

Complainant would submit that both parties are known to each other

and are friends and are seeking to quash FIR being CR No.637 of 2023

by consent and Respondent No.2 has filed Affidavit dated 21.08.2026

to that effect.

6.         It is seen that there are 7 accused persons named in the FIR

and Applicant is one of the accused persons before me. Respondent

No.2 – Complainant seeks to quash the FIR against one accused person

i.e. Applicant only. Therefore, the position of law as to whether this

Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 or Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can partially quash FIR

against some accused persons needs to be examined.         Mr. Surana,

                                                                    3 of 9
                                                                                                         APL.979.2026.doc


learned Amicus Curiae would submit that there is no bar under either

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023 that prevents quashing of FIR against certain accused

persons only neither is there any requirement by law to quash FIR /

proceedings as a whole against all accused persons. He would refer to

and rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High

Court in the following cases in support of his submissions:- (i) Lovely

Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi and Anr. 1 and (ii) K. Bharthi

Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Telangana2 ; (iii) Mrs. Poonam Khanna V/s.

State and Ors.3; (iv) 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta 2. Raj Kumar Sharma 3.

Vinod Chaudhary Vs. 1. State 2. Standard Chartered Bank 4 ; (v) Sunil

Tomar Vs. The State of NCT Delhi & Anr. 5 and; (vi) Ishwar Pratap

Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh6.

7.               I have heard learned Advocates for both the parties, learned

APP and learned Amicus Curaie. Affidavit of Consent of Respondent

No.2 – Complainant dated 31.08.2026 is placed on record before me. I

have perused the same. Considering the lis between the parties and the

statements made in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the Consent Affidavit

which are being delineated and reproduced below for ease of

reference, the Application is considered for quashing of the FIR.

Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the Consent Affidavit read thus:-
1    Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017 decided on 10th April 2017
2    Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018) decided on 03 rd October 2023
3    Criminal M.C No.3690 of 2016 decided on 30th January 2018
4    Criminal M.C. No.2289 of 2013 decided on 09th March 2017
5    Criminal M.C.1741 of 2021 decided on 12th April 2022
6    Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2017 decided on 28th November 2017



                                                                                                                       4 of 9
                                                                                APL.979.2026.doc


                 “4.    I now wish to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Court that,
                 given the circumstances of the night–time incident, I was unable to
                 accurately identify Niraj More and his involvement. Upon subsequent
                 reflection and clarification, it has come to my attention that the
                 Applicant, Niraj Rajaram More, was, in fact, not involved in the acts
                 alleged in my complaint, specifically regarding the physical assault and
                 the firearm threat. I believe that the Applicant's name was
                 inadvertently mentioned due to the confusion and chaos of the
                 incident.
                 5. I further state that I have no intention or desire to pursue any
                 prosecution against the Applicant, Niraj Rajaram More, as he was
                 mistakenly included in my initial complaint. All misunderstandings and
                 any grievances I had regarding him have been resolved.
                 6. I am filing this affidavit voluntarily and on my own free will, without
                 any pressure, coercion, or undue influence, to clarify the facts for this
                 Hon'ble Court and to express my lack of objection to the quashing of
                 FIR C.R. No. 0637 of 2023 and all the subsequent proceedings i.c.
                 Sessions Case No. 1000 of 2026 arising out of the same and pending
                 before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Court, Pimpri Chichwad as
                 it pertains to the Applicant, Niraj Rajaram More.


8.               Case of the Applicant before me is clearly covered by the

decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs.

State of NCT Delhi and Anr. (Supra) and of this Court in the case of

Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

Other7 , Hence there can be no impediment in allowing the present

Application for quashing the Complaint qua the Applicant before me,

who is 1 out of the 7 Accused persons in the present crime.

9.               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


7   Criminal Writ Petition No.3721 of 2018 Decided on 17.03.2023



                                                                                              5 of 9
                                                               APL.979.2026.doc


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.

10.            In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 8 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.

11.            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,


8   1992 AIR 604



                                                                         6 of 9
                                                         APL.979.2026.doc


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”.

12.      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

                                                                   7 of 9
                                                            APL.979.2026.doc


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.

13.       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.

14.       Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that the Complainant invoking criminal

proceedings against Applicant and subsequently retracting his

allegations which have led to both parties seeking quashing by consent,

the Complainant should pay costs. Hence, is directed to pay costs of

Rs.20,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which

                                                                      8 of 9
                                                                                                  APL.979.2026.doc


                                 runs medical centres, vocational 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, 3 rd 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 within a period of 2 weeks from

                                 the date of uploading of this order within a period of two weeks from

                                 date of uploading of this order.

                                 15.       In view of the above, Applicant stands allowed in terms of

                                 prayer clause “a” which reads as thus:-

                                           “a) That this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate writ /
                                           direction / orders and quash and set aside the FIR bearing vide
                                           C.R. No.637 of 2023 registered wit the Chikhali Police Station,
                                           Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune for the offence punishable 143, 147, 148,
                                           149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and u/s. 25 r/w.
                                           S.3 of the Arms Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising
                                           from the same as against the Applicants,


                                 16.       List the present Application for compliance of the order

                                 regarding payment of costs on 06th October 2026.

                                 17.       Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.


                                                                                [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

       Ajay

              Digitally signed
              by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.17
              11:23:33 +0530
                                                                                                              9 of 9