AMITSINGH RATHOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                    91. WP 1389-2018.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2018

                      Amitsingh Rathore                                       .Petitioner

                               Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                         .Respondents
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              Mr. Mahesh D. Tiwari, Advocate, for the Petitioner
SUDAME
                      Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
                      Mr. Manish Dubey, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
Date: 2026.09.19
15:05:34 +0530
                                            CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                            DATE       : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard   Mr.    Tiwari,    learned     Counsel   for     the   Petitioner,

                      Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Dubey,

                      learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      Parties are before me. This is a case of consent quashing with

                      regard to an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code,

                      1860. The Consent Affidavit is filed by the Complainant, father of the

                      victim, who lost his life in an unfortunate accident while working on a

                      construction site. The Petitioner before me is the Contractor. The

                      Affidavit of the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 is dated 17.04.2018.

                      This is a shelf matter which did not see light of the day for the past

                      more than eight years. Be that as it may. I have perused the said

                      Anand                                1 of 8
                                                         91. WP 1389-2018.doc

Affidavit. The amount of compensation received by the family of the

deceased has been stated in paragraph Nos. 5 & 7. In paragraph Nos. 3

& 4, absolute consent is given for quashing of the present complaint

qua the Petitioner. Though this Affidavit is filed in 2018, the Petition

remained pending. The prosecution has also filed an Affidavit of Police

Sub Inspector with regard to the directions given by the Court

previously for placing on record the guide lines issued by the State with

regards to workers employed in industries and energy related

industries and more specifically, construction industries. Those guide

lines are placed before the Court. Prima facie the compensation which

has been received in the year 2018 is covered by the said guide lines

under two different statutes. That apart, substantial cash component

has also been received by the family members of the victim. In that

view of the matter, no purpose will be served, since there is no direct

mens rea attributable to the Petitioner with regard to the offence in

question. Hence, I am inclined to accept the Petition.

3.      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


Anand                             2 of 8
                                                       91. WP 1389-2018.doc

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.

4.      In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal 1 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

further 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.


1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                                3 of 8
                                                         91. WP 1389-2018.doc

5.      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”.


6.      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

Anand                               4 of 8
                                                        91. WP 1389-2018.doc

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.


7.      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

Anand                              5 of 8
                                                         91. WP 1389-2018.doc

at large while considering consent quashing.


8.      Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

I am of the opinion that the Petitioner, for his actions resulting in the

complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties

seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs. Hence,

Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal

Bahuuddeshiya 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


Anand                               6 of 8
                                                             91. WP 1389-2018.doc


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.


The Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate

agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


9.      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 clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

           “a)   Quashing of the FIR No. 0328 OF 2016 Dated 08.10.16 Registered
                 with Talegaon Dabhol Police Station (initially FIR NO. 0445
                 Lodged by Dehu Road Police Station dated 08.10.06 and then after
                 Transferred to Talegaon Police Station) offence registered u/s
                 304A of Indian Penal Code in the interest of Justice.”


10.     List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 28.09.2026.


11.     Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the Petitioner on the returnable date for


Anand                                 7 of 8
                                                       91. WP 1389-2018.doc

compliance. 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 Petitioner.


12.     Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                 (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                              8 of 8