Bombay High Court
PRIKAR PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed, subject to the imposition of costs on the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings that arose from a civil dispute over an MOU, which had led to a civil suit and subsequent criminal case. Both parties entered into a settlement, signing consent terms and a mediator’s report dated 01‑10‑2026, and requested the court to dismiss the criminal case. The court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604) regarding consent quashing. It held that where the dispute is essentially civil and the offence is not heinous, the High Court may quash the proceedings, but may also impose costs to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the criminal proceedings were quashed, and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs to a charitable trust.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between parties where the underlying dispute is civil.
- Whether Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 528 of the BNSS) empowers the court to dismiss the case despite the offence being non‑heinous.
- Whether costs can be imposed on the petitioners in a consent‑quashing order.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. XXIX
- Society Registration Act, 1980 — s. XXI
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CrPC
- civil dispute
- criminal proceedings
- costs
- mediation
- settlement
- inherent powers of High Court
Judgment
54.WP.1757.2017.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1757 OF 2017
Prikar Properties Private Limited and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Anupam Surve a/w. Mr. Vinayak S. Vengurlekar, Advocates
i/by Ms. Nair Venurlekar & Co. for Petitioners.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Hemant J. Ashar and Ms. Neeta H. Ashar, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Karma Vivan, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
Mr. Vimal J. Soni, Respondent No.6 present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Surve, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Phad,
learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Ashar, learned Advocate
for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The parties are before the Court seeking quashing of the
criminal proceedings in view of the parties having amicably settled the
dispute finally. Consent Terms are duly signed by Petitioner Nos.1 to
3; Respondent No.6 and their respective Advocates.
3. Mr. Surve, learned Advocate persuades me to take on record
Consent Terms and Mediator's Report both dated 01.10. 2026. Perusal
1 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.doc
of the said prima facie shows that the dispute between the parties
emanated from a civil issue, namely an MOU which ultimately led to
filing of a Civil Suit and the present criminal proceedings. Be that as it
may, since the parties have now reconciled the dispute and entered
into Consent Terms, request is made by both the parties to quash the
criminal proceedings so that the parties can continue to lead their life
free of the burden of the criminal proceedings and carry on with their
business prospects.
4. Adhering to the request made by the parties, I am inclined to
consider the Petition and allow consent quashing. Parties are present
before me. I have interacted with the parties with the able assistance of
their respective Advocates. At the request made by the learned
Advocates, I wish to put in a word for the Mediator in the present
matter who has taken absolute efforts to reconcile the dispute
considering that the present Petition had remained pending on the
record of the Court for the past more than 9 years.
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
2 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.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.
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 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.
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,
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.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”.
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
4 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.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.
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 Petitioners for their actions resulting
in the Complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, Petitioners should pay costs.
Hence, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- towards the
5 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.doc
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, 3rd 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.
All Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned
Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount as directed.
11. As stated in the Consent Terms, Demand Draft of Rs.2 crores
has been handed over to Respondent No.6. The parties are all present
before me and submit that they shall all abide by the terms and
conditions in the Consent Terms as per their undertaking given to this
Court.
12. Parties shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court on the
basis of the Consent Terms and take appropriate orders for disposal of
the Civil Suit in accordance with law.
6 of 7
54.WP.1757.2017.doc
13. 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 ‘a’ and ‘a1’.
14. Parties have jointly informed the Court that they will take
immediate steps to dispose of the Civil Suit and one pending Criminal
Writ Petition in this Court for the same cause of action, in view of the
present order and the Consent Terms.
15. The Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.6 of Mr.
Karma is accepted by the Registry/Department and placed on the
record of the case.
16. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.
17. List the present Writ Petition on Board on 15th October 2026.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.10.01
18:42:07 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…