ANURADHA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHO PERSON PARTH MANOJ JADIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                         147. WP 1749-2026.doc



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026

                      Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.       .Petitioner
                      through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj
                      Jadia

                                   Vs.
ANAND
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                The State of Maharashtra & ors.                 .Respondents
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.19
                                                  WITH
19:40:03 +0530
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1379 OF 2026
                                                    IN
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026

                      Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.       .Applicant

                      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

                      Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.       .Petitioner
                      through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj
                      Jadia

                                   Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & ors.                 .Respondents

                      Mr. P. Y. Shankar a/w. Mr. Nazreen Khan & Ms. Priya Mailurkar,
                      Advocates, for the Petitioner/Applicant
                      Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for the Respondent – State
                      Mr. Sujit Sahoo a/w. Ms. Zainab Burmawala, Advocates, for
                      Respondent No. 2
                      Ms. Sonam Pandey a/w. Ms. Sandhya Yadav i/b. Ashok Purohit & Co.,
                      Advocates, for Respondent No. 6

                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE    : 11.09.2026

                      Anand                             1 of 7
                                                        147. WP 1749-2026.doc

P. C.

1.      The present Petition is for partial quashing qua the Petitioner

before me, who is arraigned as Accused No. 4 in the present crime. FIR

is registered in 2025 for incidents and offences committed between

2017 and 2024 for cheating and breach of trust. Complainant has no

grievance qua the Applicant/Accused No.4 before the Court.

Complainant has filed Affidavit of Consent dated 14.04.2026. However,

since this is for partial quashing, the Petitioner before me has also

impleaded the other Accused persons, who are represented by

Ms. Pandey. Mr. Sahoo represents the Complainant. The Complainant

has no grievance with respect to quashing of the present complaint qua

Accused No. 4. This will be a case of partial quashing. In view of the

decision in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi

and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 decided on 10.04.2017,

partial quashing is permissible. The Affidavit of Consent is filed on

record. The present Petition qua quashing of the complaint partially

qua the Applicant before me i.e. Accused No. 4 stands allowed.

2.      It is clarified that insofar as the substantive rights of the other

co-accused persons in the FIR is concerned, the same shall subsist and

shall be taken to its logical end in accordance with law.

3.      Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred


Anand                               2 of 7
                                                     147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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.

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
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                            3 of 7
                                                       147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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.


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
Anand                                4 of 7
                                                       147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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.


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

Anand                              5 of 7
                                                        147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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.


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 and Applicant in both matters are directed to pay combined

costs of Rs. 10,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust

which 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 two

weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The Petitioner is

Anand                               6 of 7
                                                              147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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 ‘b’ which read thus:-

           “b)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the First
                 Information Report No. 0431 of 2025 registered on 23/8/2025
                 under sections 34, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
                 by the Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2
                 (Informant) against the Petitioner.”

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

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.


13.     In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, I. A. No. 1379 of 2026

does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)


Anand                                  7 of 7