MAHENDRA ASHOK SHINGARE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                 WP.2037.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2037 OF 2026

       Mahendra Ashok Shingare and Ors.                   .. Petitioners
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Ors.                      .. Respondents

                                 ....................
        Mr. Shantanu Lalpate, Advocate for Petitioners.
        Mr. Rahul D. Gaikwad, Respondent No.2 in person appearing
         through VC.
        Mr. Nilesh Raut, on behalf of Respondent No.3 appearing through
         VC.
        Dr. Vasudevan, on behalf of Respondent No.4 appearing through
         VC.
        Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
        PSI Gadhpe, Sinnar Police Station.
                                    ......…...........

                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                   DATE         : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Mr. Lalpate, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr.

       Gaikwad, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr. Raut, on behalf

       of Respondent No.3; Dr. Vasudevan, on behalf of Respondent No.4 and

       Mr. Karmarkar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.


       2.        This Writ Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

       Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Petitioners who are arraigned as

       accused seeking quashing of FIR No.0734 dated 20.11.2025 registered

       with Sinnar Police Station, district Nasik for offences punishable under


                                                                           1 of 8
                                                         WP.2037.2026.doc


Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2) read with 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Complainant - Respondent No.2 herein

is one Gaurav Dnyanoba Somvanshi, ex - director of Nasik Krushi

Vikasi Producer Company. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the directors of the

same company. They are arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 4.


3.       Both the parties have approached the Court for quashing of

the criminal proceedings. Accused No.5 is Samunnati Financial

Intermediation & Servces Pvt. Ltd. whereas Accused No.6 is

Kissandhan Agri Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. These are two Non

Banking Financial Companies. Complainant filed First Information

Report because Accused Nos.1 to 4 obtained loan of Rs.25 lakhs from

Accused No.5 and Rs.15 lakhs from Accused No.6 in February and

March 2024 by forging the signature of Complainant being one of the

co-directors of the Company. Complainant had resigned as Director on

01.01.2024. All parties are before Court. Learned Advocate for parties

inform Court that the Rs.40 lakhs loan of Accused Nos.5 and 6 has

been duly repaid in full by Accused Nos.1 to 4. The cluster head of

Accused No.5 Mr. Nitesh Raut has appeared on VC and confirms

execution of Settlement Deed and No Dues Certificate dated

07.04.2026    placed   on   record.   Similarly   Dr.   Vasudevan      –

Representative of Accused No.6, appears on behalf of Samunnati

Financial Intermediation & Services Pvt Ltd. and confirms the

settlement terms of its loan account having been settled by Accused

                                                                   2 of 8
                                                         WP.2037.2026.doc


Nos.1 to 4 and confirms NIL Outstanding Confirmation vide dated

19.01.2026. Complainant appears in person and confirms his Consent

for quashing on the basis of settlement / compromise deed

nomenclature as Memorandum Of Understanding / Settlement Deed

dated 11.03.2026 appended at Exhibit “F” at page No.79 to 85 of the

Petition. This Settlement Deed is executed by all 4 directors of Nasik

Krushi Vikas Producer Pvt. Ltd including Complainant.


4.        Since the lis is reconciled and Complainant persuades the

Court to quash the Complaint by mutual consent, in the aforesaid facts

and circumstances it would be appropriate to consider the request for

consent quashing since parties have agreed to put an end to the

dispute which is amicably settled and resolved and move on in life.


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

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



                                                                   3 of 8
                                                                 WP.2037.2026.doc


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.


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
1    1992 AIR 604



                                                                           4 of 8
                                                         WP.2037.2026.doc


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

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.



                                                                   5 of 8
                                                            WP.2037.2026.doc


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, the Petitioners should pay costs.

Hence, all 4 Petitioners namely Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 - Directors are

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

                                                                      6 of 8
                                                                   WP.2037.2026.doc


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 2 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 to the charity within a period

of 2 weeks from the date of uploading of this order.


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

allowed in terms of prayer clauses “ B]” and “C]” which read thus:-

          “B] The crime bearing No. 0734 dated 20.11.2025 registered with
          Sinnar Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik for the offence
          punishable under section 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2)
          r/w. 3(5) of BNS against the Petitioner may kindly be quashed and
          set aside.
          C] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the
          investigation and trial of crime bearing No. 0734 dated 20.11.2025
          registered with Sinnar Police Station, Tq. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik for
          the offence punishable under section 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338,
          339, 340(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS may kindly be stayed.”


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

payment of costs on 6th October 2026.


13.       Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain

                                                                                7 of 8
                                                                     WP.2037.2026.doc


       present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the

       returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 Petitioners to both

       Petitions.


       14.             Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.




                                                       [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                  Digitally signed
Ajay              by RAVINDRA
        RAVINDRA MOHAN
        MOHAN    AMBERKAR
        AMBERKAR Date:
                  2026.09.15
                  19:31:40 +0530




                                                                               8 of 8