ASHOK CHAMPALAL PAREKH AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                     75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 2205 OF 2026

           Ashok Champalal Parekh & Anr.                     .. Petitioners
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                       .. Respondents
                                        ....................
            Mr. Gaurav Nankar a/w Mr. Pibush Toshnival i/by Mr. Ashish
              Pawar, Advocates for Petitioners
            Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
            Ms. Ruchi Singh a/w Ms. Smita Ausarkar, Advocates for
             Respondent No. 2
            Mr. John Pillai, PSI, Vile Parle Police Station
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : AUGUST 31, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Nankar, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms.

           Newton, learned APP for State and Ms. Singh, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under the provisions of Article 226 of

           the Constitution of     India 1950 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya

           Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash FIR bearing C.R. No.

           65 of 2026 dated 23.01.2026 registered with the Vile Parle Police

           Station, Mumbai.


           3.       Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have a business relationship

           being involved in the exchange of gold and gold manufactured



                                                                                     1 of 7
                                                     75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


ornaments between them. A complaint was filed due to one such

incident for breach of trust. Since the parties have reconciled their

claims, they have urged the Court to consider their case for consent

quashing.


4.    Respondent No. 2 has filed consent affidavit dated 10.07.2026

which is taken on record. I have perused the same. Parties are present

before the court. I have interacted with both parties. In the consent

affidavit, complainant has stated that all amounts have been duly paid

to him by Petitioner. In the above circumstances, there is no

impediment in allowing the present Petition as requested.


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

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

                                                                     2 of 7
                                                        75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


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

consent, in my opinion, can be considered by Court which can impose




1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                        3 of 7
                                                     75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


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.


                                                                     4 of 7
                                                     75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


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 complain invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties

seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs. Hence,

Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to Anand Mangal

Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of

uploading of this order. Petitioners are present in Court and through




                                                                     5 of 7
                                                     75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the

charity.


11.    I direct payment of costs 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 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,

                                                                     6 of 7
                                                                                    75. CRI WP-2205-26.odt


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

            Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,

            Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.

            12.       In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be

            allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so

            allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘b ’ which read thus:-

                                “(b)     This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
                                        bearing C.R. No. 65 of 2026 dated 23.01.2026 registered with the
                                        Vile Parle Police Station, Dist. Mumbai for the offences punishable
                                        under Sections 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
                                        (BNS), 2023.


            13.         It is further clarified that PW NO. 901/2026 is also quashed


            14.       List the Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment

            of costs on 16th September, 2026.


            15.       Advocate 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.


            16.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.03
                     12:14:11 +0530




                                                                                                     7 of 7