SOLI MERWAN CAMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                         153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2026

                      Soli Merwan Cama                                    .Petitioner

                              Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & ors.                     .Respondents
ANAND
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Mr. Sumit Kumar Nimbalkar i/b. Ms. Saili
Digitally signed by   Dhuru, Advocates, for the Petitioner
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.19
                      Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
12:08:26 +0530
                      Mr. Parvez Memon a/w. Valentina Sampson i/b. MZM Legal LLP,
                      Advocates, for the Respondents

                                                      WITH
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2542 OF 2026

                      Badal Maliram Mittal & ors.                         .Petitioners

                                    Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & ors.                     .Respondents

                                                  WITH
                                INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 16104 OF 2026
                                                   IN
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2542 OF 2026

                      Anup Vishwanath Patil                               .Applicant

                      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

                      Badal Maliram Mittal & ors.                         .Petitioners

                                 Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & ors.                     .Respondents


                      Anand                             1 of 8
                                  153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

Mr. Parvez Memon a/w. Valentina Sampson i/b. MZM Legal LLP,
Advocates, for the Petitioners
Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Mr. Sumit Kumar Nimbalkar i/b. Ms. Saili
Dhuru, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State

                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                    DATE     : 11.09.2026
P. C.

1.      Mentioned out of turn.

2.      Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for

the Respondents and the learned APP for the Respondent – State.

3.      These are cross Petitions on account of cross complaints. The

principle lis between the parties emanated from a Civil Suit. Consent

Terms have been filed. Suits have been withdrawn. FIR in the present

case came to be lodged due to the Civil proceedings and substantive

rights of the parties. Since the parties have reconciled their disputes

and withdrawn their Suits, they are desirous of putting an end and

closure to the Criminal proceedings also. Both the parties have filed

their Consent Affidavits which are dated March, 2026, 6 th April, 2026

and 8th April, 2026. They are taken on record. The parties are present

in Court. I have interacted with them. They agree about filing of the

Consent Affidavits. Considering the lis between the parties which is

prima facie seen and in view of the subsequent development as stated

in the Affidavits, I am inclined to allow both the Petitions by consent

Anand                            2 of 8
                                  153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

quashing.

4.      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

case to case.

5.      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
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                            3 of 8
                                      153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

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.


6.      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”.


7.      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
Anand                                4 of 8
                                    153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

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.


8.      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

Anand                              5 of 8
                                     153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

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.


9.      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 all the parties seeking

quashing by consent, the Petitioners in both the Petitions should pay

costs. Hence, Petitioners in both the Petitions are directed to pay costs

of Rs. 12,500/- each in the two Petitions to totalling to 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 – 400 004 [Contact Nos. 22425513 /

Anand                               6 of 8
                                       153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

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 Petitioners are present in

Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity. The Petitioners are present in Court and

through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs

amount to the charity.


10.     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 clause ‘a’ in W. P. No. 2048 of 2026 which reads thus:-

           “a)   The Hon’ble Court may issue appropriate writ/order/direction and
                 quash and set aside Regular Criminal Case No. 1129 of 2012 in the
                 Court of Ld. JMFC, Court No. 5, Pune arising out of FIR bearing
                 CR No. 165 of 2011 registered at Vimantal police station for the
                 offence punishable u/s. 420, 465, 468, 471, 442, 143, 147, 148,
                 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(25)(29)(30) of the Indian
                 Arms Act.



11.     Writ Petition No. 2542 of 2026 stands allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘B’ which reads thus:-

           B)    Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any
                 other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order under Article
                 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to quash Chargesheet No.
                 134 of 2014 dated 24.11.2014, filed under Sections 395, 397, 427,
                 447, 450, 452 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
                 Section 3(5) of the Arms Act, 1959, pending before the Ld. 17
                 District Judge 1 and Addl. Sessions Judge Pune and all
                 consequential proceedings/including summon issued to the
Anand                                 7 of 8
                                        153 & 157. WP 2048-2026 (common order).doc

                Petitioners arising therefrom.”



12.     List both the the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order

regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026.


13.     Advocates for the Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the 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.


14.     Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.


15.     In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions, I.A.(St.) No. 16104 of

2026 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.




                                                      (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                 8 of 8