Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, SANGLIversusCHANDRAKANT SHANKAR NATIKAR (DEC)THR.LRS.1.1)SAMPATTABAI CHANDRAKANT NATIKAR AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court allowed the application, quashed the FIR and charge‑sheet, and imposed costs of Rs.25,000 payable to a charitable organization.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR No.44/2022 and related charge‑sheet for offences under the IPC and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, alleging that the dispute had been settled by full payment and a consent affidavit. The court examined the inherent powers under Section 528 (mirroring Section 482 of the CRPC) to prevent abuse of process and considered the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal on quashing FIRs. It held that where the dispute is essentially civil, the offences are not heinous, and the parties consent to quashment, the court may dismiss the criminal proceedings, but may also impose costs to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the court ordered the FIR and charge‑sheet quashed, directed the applicants to pay Rs.25,000 to a charitable NGO, and disposed of the application and related interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet can be quashed on the basis of a settlement and consent of the parties under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Whether the offences alleged (IPC 420, 417, 418, 120B and MPID Act sections) are of a nature that permits quashment despite being non‑compoundable.
- Whether the court may impose costs on the applicants in a consent‑quashment proceeding.
- Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 (akin to Section 482 CRPC) are applicable in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 417, 418, 420
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- consent quashment
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CRPC
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of civil dispute
- abuse of process
- public resources
Judgment
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1174 OF 2026
Anil Kumar and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.702 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1174 OF 2026
Anil Kumar and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.701 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1174 OF 2026
Anil Kumar and Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Meghshyam Kochrekar, Advocate i/by Mr. Ameya Lambhate for
Applicants.
Mr. Amit Munde, Additional P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Maitreya Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
PSI – Dinesh Palav, Marine Drive Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kochrekar, learned Advocate for Applicants; Mr.
Munde, learned Additional PP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr.
Shukla, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
1 of 7
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
2. This Application is filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with C.R.No.44 of 2022
registered with Marine Drive Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 417, 418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999.
3. Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 is
permitted to file the Vakalatnama and Registry shall accept the same
within a period of two weeks from today.
4. The issue and lis qua singular dispute stands resolved by he
having being paid the entire amount and he filing the Consent
Affidavit dated 14.07.2026. The copy of the Affidavit is placed before
me. I have perused the same.
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
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
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
and thereafter both parties seeking quashing of proceedings by
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
consent, in my opinion, can be cosidered 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 matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to
humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
4 of 7
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
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 Applicants for their actions resulting
in the complaint invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs.
Hence, Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to a
charity / charitable organization Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha. All Applicants are present in Court and through their learned
Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
11. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya
5 of 7
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
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
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.
6 of 7
91.APL.1174.2026.doc
12. In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to
be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so
allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a1’ which reads thus:-
“(a1) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
FIR/44/2010 lodged at Marine Drive Police station and
chargesheet filed. Pending trial before Sessions Court Mumbai by
MPID Spl.Case No.1512 of 2020”
13. Needless to state that if any consequential action pursuant to
the aforesaid filing of the FIR and the charge-sheet has been taken at
the instance of the Applicant, the same shall stand vacated with the
passing of this order.
14. Advocates in all Applications for Applicants shall remain
present and show compliance on behalf of all Applicants on the
returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 Applicants.
15. List the Criminal Application for compliance of the order
regarding payment of costs on 11th September 2026.
16. Criminal Application No. 1174 of 2026 is allowed and
disposed. In view of disposal of Criminal Application, Interim
Application Nos. 701 of 2025 and 702 of 2025 are accordingly
disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
7 of 7
2026.09.01
19:49:50 +0530
Checking your session…