M/S WALIA AGNI METAL PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                       67-WP-1884-25.doc

rsk

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1884 OF 2025

      M/S Walia Agni Metal Pvt. Ltd.                            .. Petitioner
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                         .. Respondents
                                     ...................
       Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate for Petitioner.
       Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
       Mr. Rajendra Patil, PI, Anti Extortion Crime Branch, Pimpri
        Chinchwad.
                                                           ....................
                                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                     DATE       : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Mr. Hinduja, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Newton,

      learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.


      2.          This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the

      CRPC/BNSS by parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the

      able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and

      learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find

      it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of

      brevity.


      3.      FIR No.44 of 2021 dated 14.01.2021 is filed for cheating and

      breach of trust regarding transaction pertaining to a plot of land

      situated in MIDC, Pune and a Memorandum of Understanding

      executed thereunder leading to exchange of monies.


                                                                                  1 of 6
                                                         67-WP-1884-25.doc


4.   The parties have reconciled their dispute by filing the deed of

compromise dated 20.12.2022 in Commercial Suit No.12 of 2021

before the learned Trial Court and said Commercial suit has been

disposed of. Consequently, Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated

18.06.2026, a copy of which is appended at page No. 66 onwards.


5.   I have perused the same. The dispute has been resolved amicably.

Parties are present before the Court. They have confirmed resolution of

the dispute. The    advocates have identified the respective parties.

Parties are therefore before the Court for consent quashing.


6.        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

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



                                                                    2 of 6
                                                                67-WP-1884-25.doc


case to case.


7.           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.


8.           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”.



1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                           3 of 6
                                                        67-WP-1884-25.doc


9.       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

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.


10.      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

                                                                   4 of 6
                                                           67-WP-1884-25.doc


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.


11.       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.25,000/- 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, 3rd Panjarapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai – 400

                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                               67-WP-1884-25.doc


                                 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.

                                 Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree

                                 to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


                                 12.       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’ which read thus:-

                                           “ a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
                                           other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature under
                                           Article 226 of Constitution of India R/w Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023,
                                           thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned F.I.R. No. 0044 of
                                           2021, registered with Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Station, Pimpri for the
                                           offence punishable under Section 420, 406, & 34 of the Indian Penal
                                           Code.


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

                                 payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.


                                 14.       Advocates in Petition for Petitioner shall remain present and

                                 show compliance on behalf of 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 to Petition.


                                 15.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


rsk                                                                         [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                    Digitally signed
      AJAY
      TRAMBAK
                    by AJAY
                 TRAMBAK                                                                                  6 of 6
                 UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
                    10:49:56 +0530