Bombay High Court

AMRINA M FERNANDES @ AMRINA ZAVERIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 11 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that, given the parties’ voluntary settlement and the non‑grievous nature of the offences, the FIRs and related proceedings may be quashed under the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the intervenor’s objection was dismissed.

Summary

The Bombay High Court dealt with a group of six writ petitions and one interim application seeking consent quashing of four FIRs and a criminal case arising from a lift‑incident on 19‑Nov‑2025 that resulted in a miscarriage. The petitioners, who were the accused, and the complainants mutually agreed to settle the matter and filed consent affidavits stating the assault was impulsive, non‑premeditated and that they wished to move on. The State opposed the quashing, arguing that the offences (including assault, extortion and causing miscarriage) were serious, non‑compoundable and that the intervenor had locus‑standi to object. The Court examined the scope of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC), the nature of the offences, and whether the consent was free of duress. Finding the parties’ settlement genuine, the offences not gravely affecting society, and the intervenor lacking any substantive interest, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash all four FIRs, the related charge‑sheets and pending proceedings, while imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners in two petitions. The interim application by the intervenor was dismissed.

Issues considered

The propriety of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNS/Section 482 CrPC to quash FIRs on the basis of consent.
Whether the offences alleged (assault, extortion, causing miscarriage) are compoundable or non‑compoundable for the purpose of consent quashing.
The validity and voluntariness of the consent affidavits filed by the complainants.
The locus‑standi of an intervenor who is neither a complainant nor an accused to oppose consent quashing.
Whether public interest and societal impact preclude quashing of the FIRs.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 28, 308(2), 308(4), 308(7), 3(5), 351(2), 528, 61(2), 74, 79, 89
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 162, 482

Subjects

consent quashing
inherent jurisdiction
Section 528 BNS
Section 482 CrPC
compoundable offence
locus standi
extortion
miscarriage
FIR quashing
high court order

Judgment

WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.207 OF 2026

Amrina M. Fernandes @ Amrina Zaveri .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1140 OF 2026

Rhythm Arvind Goyal .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1139 OF 2026

Tanay Jitendra Shah .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1192 OF 2026

Amrina M Fernandes @ Amrina Zaveri .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2026

Valentine Fransico Silveira .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1394 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2026

Deepak Ravi Kapoor .. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Valentine Fransico Silveira .. Petitioner

1
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2026

Hemlata Aditya Patkar @ Hemlata Bane @ Bane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh
and Mr. Dwarkesh B. Chavda, Advocates for Petitioner in Writ
Petition Nos.1140 of 2026; 1139 of 2026; Respondent No.2 in Writ
Petition No.1192 of 2026; for Respondent No.7 in Writ Petition
No.1306 of 2026 and Respondent No.8 in Writ Petition No.207 of
2026.
 Mr. Meghashyam Kocharekar a/w. Mr. Bahraiz Irani, Mr. Shane
Santos, Mr. Amit Padwal, Mr. Anosh Irani, Ms. Afrin Dalal and Ms.
Aafreen Bano, Advocates for Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.1192 of
2026, 207 of 2026 and 1306 of 2026 and for Respondent in Writ
Petition Nos.1140 of 2026 and 1139 of 2026.
 Mr. Prabhakar B. Parse, Advocate i/by Ms. Hemlata Patkar for
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1584 of 2026.
 Mr. Chetan Gogawale, Advocate for Intervenor in Interim
Application No.1394 of 2026.
 Mr. Shishir S. Hiray, Chief Public Prosecutor a/w. Mr. Yogesh M.
Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
 Mr. Akash Waghmare, PSI, Amboli Police Station in Writ Petition
No.1192 of 2026.
 Mr. Rupesh Patil, (DCB, CID), A.E. Cell.
 Mr. Arun Thorat, PI CBI Crime.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate Petitioner in Writ

Petition Nos.1140 of 2026; 1139 of 2026; for Respondent No.2 in Writ

Petition No.1192 of 2026; for Respondent No.7 in Writ Petition

2
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

No.1306 of 2026 and for Respondent No.8 in Writ Petition No.207 of

2026; Mr. Kocharekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner in Writ Petition

Nos.1192 of 2026, 207 of 2026 and 1306 of 2026 and for Respondent

in Writ Petition Nos.1140 of 2026 and 1139 of 2026; Mr. Gogawale,

learned Advocate for Intervenor in Interim Application No.1394 of

2026; Mr. Parse, learned Advocate for Petitioner in Writ Petition

No.1584 of 2026 and Mr. Hiray learned CPP a/w. Mr. Nakhwa,

learned APP for Respondent – State

2. All the above 6 Writ Petitions along with 1 Intervention

Application are decided together by this common order by virtue of

report dated 01.09.2026 submitted by the I/c Registrar Judicial – I

pursuant to order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Court.

3. This is a group of 6 Writ Petitions and 1 Intervention

Application. Though there are 4 different First Information Reports

(for short “FIR”) registered qua the offences concerned, they are all

linked to each other in seriatim and are having common parties or

friends and relations of common parties who are involved as parties.

FIR No.1102 of 2025 is filed first in point of time on 19.11.2025.

Second FIR No.1127 of 2025 is filed on 23.11.2025. Third FIR No.676

of 2025 is filed on 24.12.2025. Fourth FIR being CR No.126 of 2025 is

filed on 27.02.2026. Quashing by consent is sought by all parties

namely Complainants and Accused persons in all 4 FIRs. All

3
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

complainants are present before Court. Intervention Application which

is filed by a third party to oppose consent quashing of the third FIR

only. Intervenor does not object to quashing of the other two FIRs /

CR.

Writ Petition No.1139 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.1140 of 2026 (For

quashing of FIR No.1102 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025).

4. Writ Petition No.1139 of 2026 is filed by Tanay Jitendra

Shah (arraigned as Accused No.1) for quashing of FIR and Chargesheet

No.1102 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 registered with Amboli Police

Station for offences punishable under Sections 74, 79, 89, 118(1), 3(5)

of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom including chargesheet and

Sessions Case No.72 of 2026 pending before Sessions Court at

Dindoshi, Mumbai.

5. Writ Petition No.1140 of 2026 is filed by Rythym Arvind

Goyal (arraigned as Accused No.2) for quashing of FIR and

Chargesheet No.1102 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025 registered with

Amboli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 74, 79,

89, 118(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”)

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including

chargesheet and Sessions Case No.72 of 2026 pending before Sessions

Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai.

4
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

6. The Complainant in the aforementioned two Writ Petitions is

Respondent No.2. In both Petitions, advocates for Petitioners and

Complainant are present in Court. Both Petitioners are in jail.

Complainant is present in Court. Parties seek quashing of FIR by

consent. Incident occurred in the intervening night of 14.11.2025 and

15.11.2025 at around 2:30 a.m. inside the lift of Complainant's

workplace establishment in Mumbai where 5 persons were present

namely liftman / watchman, both Petitioners, Complainant and an

unidentified female later identified to be sister of Tanay J. Shah

(Accused No.1). Complainant was 8 months pregnant which was not to

the knowledge of both Petitioners. A verbal scuffle ensured between

them when it is alleged that Accused No.2 pointed a laser light at

Complainant. This led to a physical fight between them and Accused

No.1 struck Complainant on her head with the laser device causing

bleeding. The liftman intervened but he too was assaulted. According

to prosecution case, by the time the lift reached Ground floor, both

Petitioners tuned hostile and assaulted Complainant in her stomach

and pushed her to the ground. Cross complaint is also filed by sister of

Accused No.1 stating a different version. Complainant was rushed to

hospital by her work colleagues. On the following day, Complainant

experienced severe pain and underwent sonography as she was 8

weeks pregnant, whereafter she was informed about having suffered a

miscarriage. FIR was lodged on 19.11.2025. Investigation is

5
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

completed.

7. Insofar as this incident is concerned, Complainant and her

Advocate are before Court and both Petitioners are duly represented by

Advocates. This incident led to filing of 3 further FIRs to which I will

advert to hereinunder while dealing with those Writ Petitions

separately for consent quashing. Insofar as present offence is

concerned, Complainant has filed her consent affidavits separately in

both Writ Petitions which are dated 12.03.2026 respectively. I have

perused both consent affidavits and heard the parties. Complainant is

present before me and urges the Court to quash the criminal

proceedings in present FIR against both Petitioners in view of parties

arriving at an amicable settlement and their desire is to put an end to

the criminal proceedings and move on in their respective lives freely.

Complainant expresses herself and states that she would like to

consent for quashing the proceedings, FIR and chargesheet without

any duress, coercion and force. I have interacted with the Complainant

in Court.

8. The State is duly represented by Mr. Hiray, learned Chief

Public Prosecutor and he would contend to the contrary. He would

submit that both Petitioners are inside jail as a result of their heinous

act of causing death of an unborn person, but as a consequence of

consent quashing, they would now be released from jail and stand

6
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

exonerated, if so accepted by Court at the behest of the parties. He

would however make a much larger point for Court’s consideration and

submit that act of assault of Petitioners in this case is not only a violent

act but should be construed as an offence against Society at large. He

would vehemently argue that the offence committed by both

Petitioners is against an unborn person in the present case and it is

duty of the Court to protect the right of such unborn person who can

otherwise have no legal representation. He would passionately

persuade the Court to consider rejecting plea of consent quashing in

view of the gravity of the act resulting in ending the life of an unborn

person. However when a pointed question regarding Petitioners having

knowledge of the fact whether Complainant was 8 weeks pregnant is

put to him, he in his usual fairmindedness would attempt to answer

the question differently by arguing that in view of the facts in the

present case, Court will have to conclude that knowledge of Petitioners

would be irrelevant and immaterial since no prudent person could

otherwise assault a woman mercilessly which would lead to

miscarriage. Hence he would persuade the Court to dismiss both

Petitions, since according to prosecution in effect parties are

attempting to compound the criminal act / offences which is an

extremely grievous act and power of compounding should not and

cannot be exercised in such cases.

7
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

9. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties at the bar and with their able assistance, perused the

entire record of the case.

10. Though admittedly a very grievous and unforgettable

incident has occurred causing severe suffering and trauma to

Complainant which undoubtedly cannot be reversed by any of the

parties before Court or by any means. The Prosecutor has filed

Affidavit In Reply dated 30.03.2026 in both Petitions separately to

oppose both Petitions and seek rejection. I have gone through the

same. The Complainant is present before the Court and I have

interacted with her qua her consent affidavits. Mr. Ponda appears for

both Petitioners and Mr. Kocharekar appears for Complainant. In her

consent affidavit, Complainant in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has stated

as under:-

“3. I say that when the incident occurred, the emotions were
very high and the atmosphere was emotionally charged. The
situation was highly traumatic, and all logical thinking was
grossly affected to a large extent. Rational thinking was semi-
paralysed. As far as the allegation made by me is concerned,
after peaceful deliberation, I have to say that it all started with
the accused pointing a laser at me to which I objected that gave
rise to a scuffle, on account of which, the miscarriage happened.
In hindsight, it is apparent that the accused, Rhythm Goyal or
his associates, did not know me. Obviously, there was no
premeditation. What happened in the heat of the moment
between us in the lift, on wiser thinking and peaceful
deliberation, can be attributed to an impulsive act of immaturity
committed without any intention of doing the same. I say that
this has been extremely traumatic for me and my husband, and
even today it remains traumatic. From the incident till date it is
as if my life and that of my husband has virtually come to a
stand-still and we continue to be haunted by this case virtually
suffocating our future. I want to proceed further with my life,

8
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

but the pendency of these proceedings has become a source of
great mental discomfort. It is affecting my marriage and my
peace of mind. I want to move on in life and close these matters
at once.
4. I say that, with the intervention of well-wishers and elders,
and in order to secure peace and avoid further litigation, the
disputes and misunderstandings have been resolved amicably
between me and the Petitioner and the concerned parties. I state
that I do not desire to continue the criminal proceedings arising
out of the aforesaid FIR and the consequential proceedings.”
5. I say that I am executing this Affidavit voluntarily, out of my
free will, and without any force, coercion, threat, undue
influence, pressure, or inducement from any person whatsoever.
I fully understand the contents of this Affidavit and the
consequences of giving this consent / no objection.”

11. What Complainant has stated has been affirmed by her.

Complainant has stated that Petitioners did not know her. She has

referred to a scuffle leading to the unfortunate incident in question and

states that according to her it was not premeditated and it happened in

the virtual heat of the moment inside the lift. However most

pertinently wish of Complainant and reasons for consent quashing

which follow next in paragraph No.3 is what I am inclined to consider

as per her request. The long lasting effects of a criminal prosecution

can be traumatic for any Complainant in a given case especially when

she is a woman. Complainant has stated that her family life was / has

been extremely distressed and disturbed after the incident and more so

because of pendency of the present criminal proceedings which led to a

great mental discomfort to her virtually suffocating her life. Without

amplifying any further, I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by

her when she states this, especially in the backdrop of the above

9
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

incident and more importantly after what followed thereafter which is

going to be considered by me for determining the other Writ Petitions

for consent quashing wherein three further FIRs were registered in

quick succession qua different offences, but all linked to this principal

incident in question. Hence I am inclined to accept the consent

affidavits filed by Complainant as genuine and filed by her without

coercion or duress whatsoever for consent quashing after hearing

parties and considering the overall facts. Though Mr. Hiray would be

otherwise right in his contentions, Court will have to make a

considered decision on the basis of the pleadings for excersing its

power under Section 482 for consent quashing. Hence I am not

inclined to consider Mr. Hiray’s request for rejection of the Petitions.

12. Needless to state that appropriate orders will be passed qua

both Petitioners so that Petitioners cannot be allowed to be exonerated

so lightly in view of their serious act of assaulting a woman in a public

place, no matter what the provocation and / or reason could be in any

circumstances. No one present in Court qua the other parties in the

companion Writ Petitions takes any objection, save and except the

State for consent quashing in these 2 Petitions and the State’s objection

is recorded and considered.

13. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

10
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

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.

14. 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

1 1992 AIR 604

11
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

because they involve societal implication.

15. 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”.

16. 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

12
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

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.

17. 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. This aspect is considered with the

other Petitions for consent quashing. 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.

13
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, though the consequential act / incident resulted in a very serious

accident / result however, not having knowledge being one of the

principal reason and the incident having occurred on the spur of the

moment without predetermined intent or premeditation and most

importantly adhering to the wish of the Complainant and her stance in

her affidavits, that if Petitions are rejected, not only the ignominy of

the Complainant will be protracted further, but the trial will take a

long time to conclude and it would cause further trauma to the

Complainant, present Petitions are considered. Though parties have

settled the matter amongst themselves amicably and desire to move on

in their lives, especially when Complainant expressly so desires, the act

of both the Petitioners being violent leading to filing of Complaint and

its after effects being serious, I am inclined to levy exemplary costs on

both the Petitioners to be paid to charity as directed by the Court

hereinunder for allowing these two Petitions by consent quashing.

Hence in the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

Petitioners for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking

criminal proceedings and setting criminal law into motion and now

both parties seeking quashing by consent and, Petitioners being

primarily responsible, they should pay costs. Hence, Petitioners are

directed to pay costs to charity. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1139 of

2026 is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only)

14
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

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, 3 rd 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. Petitioner in Writ Petition

No.1140 of 2026 is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One

Lakh only) to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO

and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards

social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community development

of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them

shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women

empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill

training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development

and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community

groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and

complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with

intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of

15
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under:-

Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra

Account Number: 60434381304

IFSC Code: MAHB0002075

MICR Code: 423014102

Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.

Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,

Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga

Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,

Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.

19. The above costs as directed shall be paid by both the

Petitioners within one week from date of uploading of this order. Both

Petitioners through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the above charity.

20. In view of the above, both Petitions are allowed subject to

payment of costs as directed herein above in terms of prayer clause ‘I’

in both Petitions which read thus:-

Writ Petition No.1139 of 2026. (Allowed in terms of prayer clause I).

16
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet final
report vide Sessions Case No.72/2026 pending before the
Hon’ble Sessions Case at Dindoshi, Mumbai;.”

Writ Petition No.1140 of 2026. (Allowed in terms of prayer clause I).

“I. That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned
First Information Report bearing no.1102 of 2025 dated
19.01.2026 registered with the Amboli Police Station for the
offences punishable under 74, 115(2), 118(2), 351(2) read with
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, including the charge-sheet final
report vide Sessions Case No.72/2026 pending before the
Hon’ble Sessions Case at Dindoshi, Mumbai;.”

21. List both these Writ Petitions for compliance of the order on

23rd September 2026.

22. Writ Petition Nos.1139 of 2026 and 1140 and 2026 are

allowed and disposed in terms of prayer clause “I” and as a result of

this order of consent quashing of FIR and chargesheet No.1102 of 2025

and Sessions Case No.72 of 2026, both Petitioners are directed to be

released from prison forthwith on the basis of a certified copy of this

order downloaded from the website of the Bombay High Court and on

due compliances in accordance with.

23. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain

present and show compliance on behalf of both 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.

17
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

24. Both Writ Petition Nos.1139 of 2026 and 1140 of 2026 are

allowed and disposed.

Writ Petition No.1192 of 2026 (For quashing of second FIR No.1127 of

2025 dated 23.11.2025).

25. This Writ Petition is filed for consent quashing by Petitioner

– accused person namely Amrina Fernandes, who is the Complainant

in FIR No.1911 of 2025 registered with Amboli Police Station.

Complainant in this Writ Petition is Yashvi Shah, who is the sister of

Tanay Shah (Accused No.1 in FIR No.1911 of 2025). Complainant has

filed this FIR against Petitioner for molestation and outraging her

modesty. It is filed on 23.11.2025 with regard to the incident of

19.11.2025 in the lift which is the subject matter of FIR dated

19.11.2025.

26. According to Complainant, when five persons were going

down in the lift on 19.11.2025 post midnight, Rhythm Goyal, fiance of

Complainant was poking fun amongst the members of the group and

his such loud talk was objected to by Petitioner Amrina Fernandes

which led to a verbal scuffle and a physical fight thereby injuring the

Petitioner on her head. According to Complainant, when the lift landed

on the ground floor, two bouncers assisted the Petitioner and had a

fistfight with Rhythm Goyal and Tanay Shah thereby injuring them. In

this imbroglio, it is the Complainant's case that she was molested

18
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

physically by the bouncers and Petitioner also.

27. Charge sheet is not filed herein. Consent affidavit of

Complainant Yashvi Shah dated 12.03.2026 is placed on record. She is

present in Court. Equally, Petitioner - Amrina Fernandes is also present

in Court. I have interacted with both of them. Both the women desire

that they have amicably settled the dispute and do not desire to carry

on with the criminal proceedings any further and wish to carry on with

their respective lives. They therefore persuade the Court to consider

consent quashing so that the future life of theirs and their family

members is fruitful and happy without the ignominy of the pending

criminal proceedings and mere so when the parties to the principal FIR

have settled the issue amicably and come before the Court. I have

considered the Consent Affidavit of the Complainant – Yashvi Shah

wherein in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 wherein she states as under:-

3. I say that, with the intervention of well-wishers and elders,
and in order to secure peace and avoid further litigation, the
disputes and misunderstandings have been resolved amicably
between me and the Petitioner and the concerned parties. I state
that, I do not desire to continue the criminal proceedings arising
out of the aforesaid FIR and the consequential proceedings.
4. I say that I am executing this Affidavit voluntarily, out of my
free will, and without any force, coercion, threat, undue
influence, pressure or inducement from any person whatsoever. I
fully understand the contents of this Affidavit and the
consequences of giving this consent/no objection.
5. I state that, I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased
to allow the present Writ Petition and quash FIR bearing No.
1127 of 2025 under Sections 74, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) read
with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at
Amboli Police Station on 23rd November, 2025.
6. I further state that upon quashing of the aforesaid FIR and

19
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

proceedings, 1 shall not raise any grievance and/or claim against
the Petitioner arising out of the allegations forming part of the
said FIR, and I confirm that I do not wish to pursue the said
prosecution.

28. Considering that this complaint would be in the nature of a

cross-complaint otherwise and respecting the views of the two women

who have persuaded the Court who are parties herein, I am inclined to

accept their request for consent quashing. No order is made for costs.

In that view of the matter, Writ Petition No.1192 of 2026 stands

allowed in terms of prayers clause “(a)” which reads as thus:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction calling for the records, papers and proceedings related to
the said FIR being FIR No. 1127 of 2025 dated 23rd November 2025
with Amboli Police Station for offences under Sections 74, 115(2),
118(1), 351(2) an 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against
the Petitioner and after going through the legality, propriety and
validity of the same be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same
against the Petitioner;”

Writ Petition No.207 of 2026 (For quashing of third FIR No.676 of

2025 dated 24.12.2025).

29. In this Writ Petition, the FIR is numbered as 676 of 2025

dated 24.12.2025. It is filed by Arvind Goyal, father of Rhythm Goyal

(Accused No.2 in the FIR dated 19.11.2025). The accused person in

this case is Amrina Fernandes (Complainant in FIR dated 19.11.2025).

FIR is filed with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station with the Anti Extortion

Cell.

20
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

30. According to Complainant, Petitioner has committed the

offence of extortion and the Complainant alongwith the Anti Extortion

Cell had laid a trap in a hotel in Lower Parel where the Petitioner was

cajoled to come and meet him through her common friend called one

Hemlata Patkar @ Hemlata Bane and two other persons.

31. I need not go into the entire details of the trap as also the

facts of this case since both the parties are before me and persuade me

to quash the case by consent. The Affidavit of consent of Arvind Goyal

dated 12.03.2026 is placed on record. He as well as Petitioner Amrina

Fernandes have persuaded me to consider consent quashing of the FIR

in view of the parties having arrived at an amicable settlement with

regard to the principal FIR dated 19.11.2025 pertaining to the incident

in question.

32. In this case, charge-sheet has already been filed. Though

insofar as the charges are concerned, they all emanate with regard to

the incident in question which occurred on 19.11.2025. According to

Petitioner, 3 other persons whose names and details are given in the

Petition and whose statements have also been recorded, cajoled her

and laid a trap to corner her at the instance of Complainant and a false

case has been foisted on her.

33. Be that as it may, since both the parties have vehemently

persuaded the Court to consider consent quashing since they have

21
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

settled the overall issues amicably and desire to move on with their

lives, the Petition is considered. In the Affidavit of consent of Arvind

Goyal who is a senior citizen and father of Accused No.2 in FIR

No.1102 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025, he has stated as under:-

3. I further say that the meetings referred to in the complaint
were held with the intervention of well-wishers. However,
without prejudice I say that, after a lapse of 3 months from filing
of the complaint and upon reasonable thinking I have come to
realize that the offence complained off by me of criminal
intimidation is a compoundable offence and does not amount to
extortion.
4. I say that I am executing this Affidavit voluntarily, out of my
free will, and without any force, coercion, threat, under
influence, pressure or inducement of any person whatsoever. I
fully understand the contents of this Affidavit and the
consequences of giving the consent/no objection.
5. I state that, I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased
to allow the present Writ Petition and quash the said
Chargesheet arising out of FIR No. 676 of 2025 registered with
N.M. Joshi Margh Police Station, Mumbai, and a corresponding
CR No. 126 of 2025 registered with Anti Extortion Cell, Mumbai,
both registered on 24th December, 2025 for offences punishable
u/s. 308(7) and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 and the consequent
Chargesheet in Case No. PW/206/2026 filed before the 37th Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate presiding at Esplanade
Court, Mumbai u/s. 308(2), 308(4), 308(7) and 61(2) of the
BNS Act, 2023.
6. I further state that upon quashing of the aforesaid FIR and
proceedings, I shall not raise any grievance and/or claim against
the Petitioner arising out of the allegations forming part of the
said FIR, and I confirm that I do not wish to pursue the said
prosecution.

34. Considering the request made and more specifically after

hearing Petitioner who is an accused in the present case, who

incidentally despite being a victim and complainant in the incident of

19.11.2025 has put an end to the principal FIR/offence and adhering

to her request, I am inclined to consider the consent Affidavit and

22
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

allow the Petition. The Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause “a” reproduced hereunder:-

“a” This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records, papers and
proceedings related to the said Crime Branch FIR being FIR
No.676 of 2025 r/w. CR No.126 of 2025 and Chargesheet dated
27.02.2026 filed before the Ld. ACJM 37 th Court, Esplanade
Court Mumbai for offences under sections 308(2), 308(4),
308(7) and 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023 against the Petitioner and
after going through the legality, proprietary and validity of the
same be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same against the
Petitioner.

35. However there shall be no order as to costs.

Writ Petition No.1584 of 2026 (For quashing of FIR No.676 of 2025

and CR No.126 of 2025).

36. In this Writ Petition, the FIR is numbered as 676 of 2025

dated 24.12.2025. It is filed by Arvind Goyal, father of Rhythm Goyal

(Accused No.2 in the FIR dated 19.11.2025). The accused person in

this case is Hemlata Patkar alias Hemlata Bane. FIR is filed with N.M.

Joshi Marg Police Station with the Anti Extortion Cell.

37. According to Complainant, Petitioner committed the offence

of extortion and the Complainant alongwith the Anti Extortion Cell laid

a trap in a hotel in Lower Parel where the Petitioner was cajoled to

come and meet him through her common friend called Amrina

Fernandes and two other persons.

23
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

38. I need not go into the entire details of the trap as also the

facts of this case since both the parties are before me. The Affidavit of

consent of Arvind Goyal dated 30.08.2026 is placed on record. He as

well as Petitioner Hemlata Patkar have persuaded me to consider

consent quashing of the FIR in view of the parties having arrived at an

amicable settlement with regard to the principal FIR dated 19.11.2025

pertaining to the incident in question.

39. In this case, charge-sheet has already been filed. Though

insofar as the charges are concerned, they all emanate from the

principal incident in question which occurred on 19.11.2025.

According to Petitioner, 3 other persons whose names and details are

given in the Petition and whose statements have also been recorded,

cajoled her and laid a trap to corner her at the instance of Complainant

and a false case has been foisted on her.

40. Be that as it may, since both the parties have persuaded the

Court to consider consent quashing so that they can carry on with their

lives, the Petition is considered. In the Affidavit of consent of Arvind

Goyal, he has stated as under:-

24
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

free will, and without any force, coercion, threat, under
influence, pressure or inducement of any person whatsoever. I
fully understand the contents of this Affidavit and the
consequences of giving the consent/no objection.
5. I state that, I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased
to allow the present Writ Petition and quash the said
Chargesheet arising out of FIR No. 676 of 2025 registered with
N.M. Joshi Margh Police Station, Mumbai, and a corresponding
CR No. 126 of 2025 registered with Anti Extortion Cell, Mumbai,
both registered on 24th December, 2025 for offences punishable
u/s. 308(7) and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 and the consequent
Chargesheet in Case No. PW/206/2026 filed before the 37th Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate presiding at Esplanade
Court, Mumbai u/s. 308(2), 308(4), 308(7) and 61(2) of the
BNS Act, 2023.
6. I further state that upon quashing of the aforesaid FIR and
proceedings, I shall not raise any grievance and/or claim against
the Petitioner arising out of the allegations forming part of the
said FIR, and I confirm that I do not wish to pursue the said
prosecution.

41. Considering the request made and more specifically after

hearing Petitioner who is an accused in the present case, I am inclined

to consider the Consent Affidavit and allow the Petition. The Petition

therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer clause “a” reproduced

hereunder:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records, papers and
proceedings against the Petitioner in relation to the said Crime
Branch FIR being FIR No. 676 of 2025 r/w. CR No. 126 of 2025
registered with NM Joshi Marg Police Station and DCB CID Anti
Extortion Squad Crime Branch, Mumbai Police dated 24th
December 2025 for offences under Sections 61 (2) and 308 (7)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Pls see Rider No.X)
against the Petitioner and after going through the legality,
propriety and validity of the same be pleased to quash and/or
set aside the same against the Petitioner;
Rider No.X
and Chargesheet bearing No. 206/PW/2026 pending before Ld.
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 37 th Court, Esplanade,
Mumbai.”

25
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

42. No order as to costs.

Writ Petition No.1306 of 2026 (For quashing of FIR No.676 of 2025

and CR No.126 of 2025).

43. Present Writ Petition is filed by one Valentine Francisco

Silveira against Arvind Goyal. Charge sheet has been filed through

Anti-Extortion Cell of N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station under FIR No.676

of 2025 dated 24.12.2025. Consent Affidavit of Arvind Goyal is dated

12.03.2026. Both the Petitioners and Complainant are before me.

Affidavit of Consent Arvind Goyal is on record. Both the accused and

Complainant have requested the Court to put an end to the matter. In

view of the principal FIR dated 19.11.2025 having been resolved

amicably and settled between all the parties thereto and the present

FIR having emanated from the said incident in question, the Petition

for consent quashing be allowed.

44. Since both the parties have persuaded the Court to consider

consent quashing so that they can carry on with their lives, the Petition

is considered. In the Affidavit of consent of Arvind Goyal, he has stated

as under:-

26
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

4. I say that I am executing this Affidavit voluntarily, out of my
free will, and without any force, coercion, threat, under
influence, pressure or inducement of any person whatsoever. I
fully understand the contents of this Affidavit and the
consequences of giving the consent/no objection.
5. I state that, I have no objection if this Hon'ble Court is pleased
to allow the present Writ Petition and quash the said
Chargesheet arising out of FIR No. 676 of 2025 registered with
N.M. Joshi Margh Police Station, Mumbai, and a corresponding
CR No. 126 of 2025 registered with Anti Extortion Cell, Mumbai,
both registered on 24th December, 2025 for offences punishable
u/s. 308(7) and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 and the consequent
Chargesheet in Case No. PW/206/2026 filed before the 37th Ld.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate presiding at Esplanade
Court, Mumbai u/s. 308(2), 308(4), 308(7) and 61(2) of the
BNS Act, 2023.
6. I further state that upon quashing of the aforesaid FIR and
proceedings, I shall not raise any grievance and/or claim against
the Petitioner arising out of the allegations forming part of the
said FIR, and I confirm that I do not wish to pursue the said
prosecution.

45. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “a” to “d”

which read as under:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records, papers and
proceedings related to the said Crime Branch FIR being FIR No.
676 of 2025 r/w. CR No. 126 of 2025 and Chargesheet dated
27th February 2026 filed before the Ld. ACJM 37th Court,
Esplanade Court Mumbai for offences under sections 308(2),
308(4), 308(7) and 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023 against the
Petitioner and after going through the legality, proprietary and
validity of the same be pleased to quash and/or set aside the
same against the Petitioner;”
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Order
dated 2nd March 2026, passed by the Ld. ACJM 37th Court,
Esplanade Court Mumbai against the Petitioner;
(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction thereby permanently restraining the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from taking any coercive action and/or
initiating any proceedings and/or conducting any investigation
against the Petitioner in relation to and/or emanating from the
said Crime Branch FIR being FIR No. 676 of 2025 r/w. CR No.
126 of 2025 and Chargesheet dated 27th February 2026 filed
before the Ld. ACJM 37th Court, Esplanade Court Mumbai;

27
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records, papers and
proceedings related to the said Crime Branch FIR being FIR No.
676 of 2025 r/w. CR No. 126 of 2025 and Chargesheet dated
27th February 2026 filed before the Ld. ACJM 37th Court,
Esplanade Court Mumbai for offences under sections 308(2),
308(4), 308(7) and 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023 against the
Petitioner along with calling for all records in relation to the
issuance of any Look Out Circular as alleged or at all and/or a
Red Corner Notice as alleged or at all against the Petitioner and
after going through the legality, proprietary and validity of the
same be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same against the
Petitioner;”

46. However, in this Petition, Interim Application No.1394 of

2026 filed by one Intervenor called Deepak Ravi Kapoor. Mr. Gogawale

represents the said Intervenor. It is the Intervenor's case that he is not

the original Complainant in the extortion case, but his statement has

been recorded as a witness by the Investigating Officer under Sections

161/162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has persuaded the Court

not to quash the present FIR since the Intervenor has a very strong

objection and would like to step into the shoes of the Complainant in

the present case.

47. He would submit that as there is a legal bar for registration

of multiple FIRs regarding the same offence, as held by the Apex Court

in the case of T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala & Ors.2 and Amish Devgan

Vs. Union of India & Ors.3 , and therefore this Court should not allow

consent quashing. When a pointed question is asked to Mr. Gogawale

with regard to his locus standi in the present criminal proceedings

2 (2001) 6 SCC 181
3 (2021) 1 SCC 1

28
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

when he is neither the Complainant nor an accused person, nor such

person who is interested in the matter, he would submit that the Apex

Court has held that the doctrine of locus standi is alien and foreign to

criminal proceedings and hence the present FIR be prosecuted by the

State since the offence of extortion between parties is clearly seen and

made out.

48. In support of this above submission, he would refer to and

rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar

Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand and Ors.4 and A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas

Nayak 5. He would submit that the term ‘ locus standi’ is a Latin term

and the Supreme Court has held that Courts must hold a relaxed,

traditional view of locus standi with a justice oriented approach in the

case of Amanullah and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.6. He would

submit that there is no point in pushing the Intervener to file a

separate FIR with regard to the same offense, and therefore, this Court

should not consider consent quashing. He would submit that Courts

need to be extra cautious while exercising their inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 and it should be exercised in the rarest of rare cases

and that too sparingly. He would refer to and rely upon the decision of

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan

Lal and Ors.7. and submit that the FIR of extortion which is filed by

4 (2001) 5 SCC 407
5 (1984) 2 SCC 500
6 1984 (2) SCC 500
7 1992 Supp (1) SCC 334

29
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

Arvind Goyal in the present case where the statement of the Intervener

has been recorded, needs to be considered from the perspective of the

offence which is committed. He would submit that quashing of such an

FIR relating to an offence of extortion would send a wrong signal to

the society at large and will have a serious impact on society.

49. Hence he would vehemently submit that, the decision to

continue with the trial in the present offence should be the overriding

element of public interest involved and the guilty should be punished

for such a serious offense having committed. He would submit that the

consent which has been obtained for quashing of FIR No.676

registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station in the present case filed

by Arvind Goyal against Valentine Francisco Silvera should not and

cannot be treated to be a valid consent in such grievous offence.

50. He would draw my attention to the statement of the

Intervener which has been recorded by the Investigating Officer, copy

of which is appended on page No.61 of Writ Petition No.1306 of 2026

and persuade me to read and consider the same. He would submit that

Petitioner well as the complainant and more specifically Amrina

Fernandes were deeply involved in attempting to settle the matter and

had held several meetings, details about which have been given in the

aforesaid statement of the Intervener. He would submit that when such

meetings are held the element of the offence of extortion comes to the

30
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

fore and such a serious and heinous offence cannot be allowed to be

compounded by way of consent quashing.

51. He would draw my attention to Section 28 of the BNS Act,

2023 and vehemently contend that a consent is not such a consent as is

intended by any section of this Sanhita, if the consent is given by a

person under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact and if the

person doing the act knows or has reason to believe that the consent

was given in consequence of such fear or misconception. He would

strongly rely upon the aforesaid proposition to submit that consent has

been given in the present case for consent quashing of the FIR on the

basis of and in consequence of the element of fear and misconception

and it cannot be treated as a free consent.

52. He would also refer to the meaning of consent as

contemplated in the Oxford Law Dictionary to be a consent by

agreement of choice by one who has the freedom and capacity to make

that choice. He would submit that consent is an essential criteria in a

number of circumstances and it must be given freely without duress or

deception and with sufficient legal competence.

53. While referring to the meaning of consent as contemplated in

the Black's Law Dictionary, he would draw my attention to the fact that

consent has to be a concurrence of wills and voluntarily yielding the

will to the proposition of another and it should be an act or result of

31
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

coming into harmony or accord. He would submit that consent should

be an act of reason accompanied with deliberation and therefore in the

present case, in the manner in which the parties have proceeded with

and the statement of the Intervenor having been recorded in the

present case it prima facie shows deep involvement of the parties and

hence, the consent given by the Complainant cannot be considered to

be free.

54. He would submit that in the facts of the present case, the

consent Affidavit cannot be treated as free consent, but it amounts to

submitting and involves submission and according to him, a mere

submission does not necessarily involve consent. He would submit that

in that view of the matter, consent of the will and submission under

the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent and

therefore he requests the Court to consider his Interim Application and

reject Writ Petition No.1306 of 2026.

55. Mr. Gogawale has fairly informed the Court that, save and

except the third FIR namely FIR No.676 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025, the

Applicant/Intervenor does not have any grievance whatsoever with

regard to the other 3 FIRs or the complaints which have been filed

between the parties as also the settlement arrived at by the parties

therein amicably. He would submit that the deep rooted conspiracy of

extortion prima facie comes to the fore in the present case and

32
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

therefore the Consent Affidavit of Complainant should not be accepted

by this Court.

56. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Gogawale

and perused the Interim Application on record. Equally, I have heard

the parties to the said Intervention Application who have all made

their submissions.

57. The submissions made by Mr. Gogawale are required to be

addressed principally on the ground of locus which is the main

objection of Respondents therein and all parties present before me.

The Investigation Officer has recorded the statement of the Applicant.

It has come on record that in the three (3) months following the week

of principal incident in question on 19.11.2025, the family and well -

wishers of the parties held meetings in view of the fact that complaint

and cross - complaints were filed with regard to not only the principal

incident in question but also with regard to the subsequent talks which

took sometime to fructify amicably.

58. Complainant is the father of Accused No.2 in FIR dated

19.11.2025, grievance is about extortion which prima facie emanates

from series of talks held between the parties. The principal offence is

agreed to be settled and quashed as is observed in this order with

adequate reasons. The Applicant in the Interim Application has no

locus whatsoever with the principal offence as also with the

33
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

subsequent events. He is not the aggrieved party. The Complainant has

filed a detailed Affidavit for “consent quashing”. Complainant being

father of the principal accused has described the aftermath of the

incident which occurred on 19.11.2025. He has persuaded the Court to

therefore quash his complaint/FIR because of the mutual and amicable

settlement between the principal accused who is his son and the

principal Complainant. The Petitioner in this FIR also agrees. A witness

whose statement is recorded, who has nothing to do with the principal

incident in question, neither concerned cannot intervene and seek

continuation of criminal proceedings.

59. Hence, if the Applicant is aggrieved he has his remedy in law

which he can pursue in accordance with law as available to him

without intervening in this case to which he has no nexus. This Court is

fully aware about the powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and how the said powers are required to be used in a

given case on overall consideration of not only the facts but also the

incident in question and the wish and desire of the parties in the facts

of the given case.

60. This Court therefore invokes the above provision to step in

where cases have been instituted with malafide motives or to harass

the accused person thereby to avoid procedural harassment. The

exercise of powers under this provision is discretionary and varies from

34
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

case to case. Here is the case before me where the offence is infact

emanating from the original principal offence and incident of

19.11.2025.

61. It is clearly seen that pursuant thereto parties thereafter

started negotiating and helping each other and several rounds of talks

took place. The principal offence is settled amicably. The issue was

squarely between two private individuals. The interest of Applicant

through the Interim Application to oppose “consent quashing” is

therefore not understood by the Court. It could very well be for

extraneous reasons also. The offence in question in this FIR cannot be

deemed to be a grievous offense equivalent to murder, rape or dacoity

so as to have societal implications. The incident itself happended on

the spur of moment. Parties have accepted the same. They wish to

move on. In my opinion a quietus and closure is therefore required to

be put to the issue because the Complainant’s Affidavit not only in this

FIR but the Complainant’s Affidavit in all other FIRs also persuades the

Court to resolve and quash the proceedings.

62. All consequential process orders including any Non Bailable

Warrants, Look Out Circulars or any such process or proceedings in

any of the aforesaid FIRs which have not been decided or are pending

by virtue of this order also stand quashed and set aside.

35
WP.207.2026 with Group.doc

63. Resultantly, FIR No.1102 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025, Second

FIR No.1127 of 2025 dated 23.11.2025, Third FIR No.676 of 2025

dated 24.12.2025 and Fourth FIR being CR No.126 of 2025 dated

27.02.2026 in the respective Police Stations and all consequential

proceedings therein are quashed and set aside.

64. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition No.207 of 2026,

Writ Petition No.1140 of 2026, Writ Petition No.1139 of 2026, Writ

Petition No.1192 of 2026, Writ Petition No.1306 of 2026 and Writ

Petition No.1584 of 2026 are allowed and disposed.

65. Interim Application No.1394 of 2026 is dismissed.

Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.11
21:03:01 +0530

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…