SANJAY TUKARAM MHASEPATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                          152. WP 1876-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 2026

                      Sanjay Tukaram Mhase Patil                       .Petitioner

                                    Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                  .Respondents

                      Mr. Ashraf Kapoor, Advocate, for the Petitioner
ANAND                 Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. Atit Oza a/w. Mr. Mohsin Ghaniwala, Advocates, for Respondent
Digitally signed by   No. 2
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.21
21:11:53 +0530                            CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE     : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Rao,

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

                      Counsel for Respondent No.2.

                      2.      The original dispute between the parties pertains to land

                      transaction with regard to registered Sale Deed dated 05.01.2018. Both

                      the learned Counsel, Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Oza are before me

                      representing and espousing the cause of private parties. Affidavit of

                      consent has been filed by Mr. Oza on behalf of Respondent No.2.

                      Mr.Oza is led by Mr. Ghaniwala, who is on VC. I have heard all the

                      learned Counsels at the bar. Perused the record of the case with their


                      Anand                             1 of 7
                                                     152. WP 1876-2026.doc

able assistance. Parties have mutually and amicably resolved their

entire lis by executing Consent Terms dated 18.12.2025 at the time of

grant of Anticipatory Bail itself and they have been taken on the record

of the Court. The obligations under the Consent Terms have also been

complied with by the respective parties, as can be seen from the

Consent Affidavit. The parties therefore urge before the Court to put an

end to the Criminal prosecution and proceedings so that the parties can

be free to lead their respective lives without the ignominy of the

Criminal proceedings so as not to hamper their future prospects.

3.      Considering the aforesaid submissions and the material on

record and the request made by the parties, I am inclined to accept and

allow the present Petition.

4.      There are total five Accused persons. However, the Petition is

filed only by one Accused person. That does not matter in view of the

averments made in the Consent Affidavit by the Complainant to quash

the complaint in its entirety.

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


Anand                            2 of 7
                                                      152. WP 1876-2026.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.

6.      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 7
                                                       152. WP 1876-2026.doc

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

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

Anand                               4 of 7
                                                       152. WP 1876-2026.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.


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

Anand                              5 of 7
                                                        152. WP 1876-2026.doc

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 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. 15,000/- 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 (up to 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.

The Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate

agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


11.     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
Anand                               6 of 7
                                                              152. WP 1876-2026.doc

allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’which read thus:-

           “a)   The present petition be allowed;
           b)    FIR C. R. No. 178 of 2025 dated 24.10.2025 registered with Neral
                 Police Station, District Raigad, for offences under Sections 318(4),
                 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) read with Section 3(5) of the
                 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all proceedings arising
                 therefrom, be quashed and set aside.”


12.     List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order on 28.09.2026.


13.     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.


14.     Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                        (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                  7 of 7