Bombay High Court
PRASHANT HINDURAO PADALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings, subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs 10,000 each.
Summary
The petitioners, Shweta Dilip Bhosale and Prashant Hindurao Padalkar, filed writ petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of FIRs registered against them for offences under the IPC, arising from cross‑complaints of breach of trust and trespass. Both parties submitted consent affidavits indicating a desire to settle the dispute and move on. The Court examined the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, referring to the Bhajan Lal guidelines and noting that the offences were not heinous and the dispute was essentially civil. It held that the petitions could be allowed on the basis of mutual consent but imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on each petitioner to deter misuse of criminal law. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the FIRs and subsequent charge‑sheets were quashed, subject to payment of the directed costs.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC when the parties have reached a consensual settlement.
- Whether the High Court may impose costs on petitioners in a consent‑quashing proceeding.
- Whether the offences alleged fall within the categories where quashing is permissible under the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 376, 376(2)(n), 417, 452, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(VA), 3(2)(VII), 3(w)(i)(ii)
Subjects
- Section 482
- quashing of FIR
- consent settlement
- costs in criminal proceedings
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
- High Court inherent powers
- IPC offences
- civil dispute in criminal case
Judgment
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2026
Shweta Dilip Bhosale .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2026
Prashant Hindurao Padalkar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Bakul Bhosale a/w Mr. Rohan Patil, Advocates for Petitioner in
WP No. 2142 of 2026
Mr. Dadhichi Mhaispurkar i/by Mr. Rishikesh Sharad Pawaskar,
Advocates for Petitioner in WP No. 2143/2026
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. Writ Petition No. 2142 of 2026 is filed under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR
registered at Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for offences
punishable under Sections 452, 504 & 506 of the IPC and subsequent
chargesheet dated 27.05.2023.
1 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
3. Writ Petition No. 2143 of 2026 is filed under the provisions of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR
registered vide C.R. No. 9 of 2023 with Mandwa Sagari Police Station
and subsequent chargesheet.
4. These are the matters of cross-complaints between parties
arising out of breach of trust and trespass. Both Petitioners have filed
consent affidavits dated 29.04.2026 and 30.04.2026, which are taken
on record in both the Petitions. I have perused the same. The parties
are present in the Court. I have interacted with them. Considering
what has happened and transpired and what is stated in the consent
affidavits, both the Petitions deserve to be allowed since the parties
desire to 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
2 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
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 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 furthered 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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
consent, in my opinion, can be considered by Court which can impose
costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court
by “consent quashing”.
8. For above levy of costs the legal principle rests on the logic that
criminal law cannot be used as a bargaining chip or a tool for private
settlements after draining the State and judicial resources. In simple
words, Courts cannot be used as a recovery mechanism to settle scores
and/or bring the parties into subjugation. I am of the firm opinion that
imposition of costs in consent quashing matters is required to be levied
for three main reasons viz., wastage of public resources, consumption
of valuable judicial time and for deterrence against vexatious
litigation. This is because after criminal machinery is set into motion,
the Police Department is forced to take cognizance, conduct
investigations, attend courts, deploy personnel, collect evidence and
draft chargesheets, all using public funds/ public exchequer. Equally
substantial judicial time 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
4 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous
pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
9. Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs the
growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints
(especially matrimonial or commercial disputes) simply to force
financial and legal settlements. In a given case made out on merits of
the matter, even the Complainant can be put to costs while considering
a quashing Petition purely on merits depending upon the facts of each
case before Court. In some strong circumstances, even the State
machinery can be put to costs if a purely civil dispute between parties
strongly emanating from the facts on record is registered as criminal
case and given the flavor of criminality. This Court is also equally
conscious about not imposing costs blindly or mechanically if a
particular party is not found to be remiss or at explicit fault for
abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting
the society 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, both Petitioners in the two Writ Petitions are directed to pay
costs of Rs.10,000/- each towards the corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s
5 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special School 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 /
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. Petitioners are present in
Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid
costs amount to the charity.
11. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be
allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so
allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) in both the Petitions
which read thus:-
WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2026
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings
registered vide C.R. No. 80 of 2023 registered at Kharghar Police
Station, Navi Mumbai, for an offence punishable u/s 452, 504 &
506 of the IPC.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to quash the subsequent
chargesheet filed on 27.5.2023 and further proceedings on the
file of Learned J.M.F.C. 1st Court Panvel vide R.C.C. No. 746 of
2023."
6 of 7
72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2026
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings
registered at Mandwa Sagari Police Station vide C.R. No. 9 of
2023 for an offence punishable u/s 376, 376 (2) (n), 417, 323,
504, 506 of the IPC r.w. 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (w) (i) (ii), 3 (2) (V), 3 (2)
(VA), 3 (2) (VII) of the S.C.S.T (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.
1989 as amended by Act of 2015;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to quash the subsequent
chargesheet filed on 11.04.2023 and further proceedings on the
file of Learned Special Judge / Sessions Judge Raigad, Alibag in
Special Case No. 9 2023."
12. List the Petitions for compliance of the order regarding payment
of costs on 16th September, 2026.
13. Advocates for Petitioners shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of 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/parties to both Petitions.
14. Writ Petitions is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.03
18:00:20
+0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…