MUKESH BHIMKUMAR PATWAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                         105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1821 OF 2025

                      Mukesh Bhimkumar Patwa                              .Petitioner

                                   Vs.

ANAND                 The State of Maharashtra & anr.                     .Respondents
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                                               WITH
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2025
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.21
21:10:52 +0530
                      Mahesh Bhimkumar Patwa                              .Petitioner

                                   Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                     .Respondents

                      Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 1821 of
                      2025
                      Mr. Mithun Mahajan, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 1826 of
                      2025
                      Mr. Mithun Mahajan, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 1821
                      of 2025
                      Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 1826
                      of 2025
                      Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 1821 of
                      2025
                      Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 1826 of
                      2025

                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE     : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned APPs for

                      Respondent No. 1 – State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.

                      Anand                             1 of 5
                                     105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc

2.      All parties are related to each other. Precursor to the incidents in

question is the previous distribution of property between them. These

are incidents of cross complaints between the parties. Petitioner in W. P.

No. 1821 of 2025 questioned the Complainant, his cousin brother,

which led to a verbal altercation, scuffle and fight resulting in simple

injury to Complainant. Cross complaint was registered against

Complainant by the wife of Petitioner. That is the second Petition, being

W. P. No. 1826 of 2025 where the Petitioner in W. P. No.1821 of 2025 is

the Accused. All parties are present in Court and inform the Court that

their differences have been resolved and they wish to move ahead in

life and seek quashing of both Criminal proceedings qua each other. In

adhering to their request and the nature of proceedings and

complaints, both the Petitions are accepted and stand allowed.

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

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


Anand                               2 of 5
                                      105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc

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.


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


1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                                3 of 5
                                      105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc

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

I am of the opinion that both the Petitioners before me in both the Writ

Petitions for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking

criminal proceedings against each other and now both the parties

seeking quashing by consent. There shall be no order as to costs.


7.      In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be

allowed as directed herein above. They are so allowed in terms of the

prayer prayed for as under :-


Writ Petition No.1821 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.

           “a)   Pleased be quash and set aside the F.I.R.No. 0606/2024 dated
                 17.07.2024, registered at Malad Police station, for the offence
                 punishable U/s 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya
                 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Case W no. --- of 2025,
                 before Ad.C.J.M, at Mumbai.



Writ Petition No.1826 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.

           a)    This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside

Anand                                4 of 5
                                       105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc

                the F.I.R. No. 0607/2024 dated 18.07.2024, registered at Malad
                Police station, for the offence punishable U/s 74, 79, 115(2) of the
                Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Case W no. 520
                of 2025, before Ad.C.J.M, at Mumbai.”



8.      Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.




                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                 5 of 5