VIJAY SHRIPAD KALE AND ANR.versusTHE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

                                                         154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2026

                      Vijay Shripad Kale & anr.                           .Petitioners

                                   Vs.

ANAND                 The Senior Inspector of Police, Economic            .Respondents
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Offences Wing, Banking – 2 & ors
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.19
                                                     WITH
15:15:22 +0530
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2026

                      Atul Harkishan Das Mehta & anr.                     .Petitioners

                                   Vs.

                      The Senior Inspector of Police, Economic            .Respondents
                      Offences Wing, Banking – 2 & ors

                      Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w. Mr. Shailendra Agharkar, Advocates, for the
                      Petitioners in W. P. No. 2324 of 2026
                      Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w. Mr. Swapnil Wagh, Mr. Prathmesh Bhogale
                      & Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocates, for the Petitioners in W. P. No. 2325 of
                      2026
                      Ms. G. S. Rao, APP, for the Respondent - State
                      Ms. Sailee Khare h/f. Mr. Tanveer Malnas, Advocates, for Respondent
                      No. 2
                      Mr. Sameer Wagh, API, EOW, Banking – 2 present

                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                         DATE     : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Merchant, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.

                      Rao, learned APP for the Respondent – State and Ms. Khare, learned


                      Anand                             1 of 8
                                    154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2.      This is a common order in W. P. No. 2324 of 2026 and W. P. No.

2325 of 2026. There was a transaction/relationship between the

parties which due to non-reciprocation led to filing of a complaint

which was transferred to the E.O.W. by the police because of the

amount being over the threshold.

3.      Mr. Merchant would submit that the parties have reconciled their

differences and disputes and amounts have now been exchanged. The

Complainant is present in Court. Qua the first Petition, his Consent

Affidavit is taken on record and he apprises the Court that he has

received all his amounts and has no further grievances and desires that

the Criminal prosecution may be quashed and set aside. Qua the

second Petition, the FIR is filed for forgery in view of the Petitioners

therein having prepared a back dated Loan Agreement. The amount

involved in the first instance was Rs. 50/- Crores, whereas the amount

with regard to the Loan Agreement was approximately Rs. 3.65/-

Crores. Record shows that the amount of Rs. 50/- Crores is now settled

between the parties, whereas the second amount under the Loan

Agreement has also been settled by debit of the balance amount. In this

regard, Rs. 2/- Crores was already paid of and Rs. 1.65/- Crores was

the balance. Two Consent Affidavits are filed. They are dated


Anand                              2 of 8
                                  154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

05.05.2026. They are taken on record. Considering the private dispute

between the parties which the Complainant and the Petitioners all

before me desire to reconcile and put an end to, I am inclined to accept

their request. Since parties request the Court to quash the Criminal

proceedings as they are a hindrance and affects them in business and

their future life prospectus.

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.




Anand                            3 of 8
                                      154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

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

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”.


1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                                4 of 8
                                     154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

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

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.




Anand                               5 of 8
                                     154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

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

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 the Petitioners, for their actions resulting in

the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now all the parties

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

Both petitioners in the two Petitions are directed to pay costs of

Rs. 10,000/- each towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust

which runs medical centres, vocational training centres and which also

Anand                               6 of 8
                                       154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

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 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.


10.     In view of the above matters, the present Petitions deserve to be

allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. Both

Petitions are allowed.


(i)     Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘A’ which reads as under :-

           “A)   This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside FIR No.5 of
                 2026 initiated on the complaint of Respondent No. 2, registered by
                 the officers of Economic Offences Wing, Banking-2, Mumbai for
                 the alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4),
                 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
                 2023;



Anand                                 7 of 8
                                      154 & 155. WP 2324-2026 (common order).doc

(ii)    Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘A’ which reads as under :-

           A)   This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR No. 7
                of 2026 initially registered with the Govandi Police Station and
                now being taken over and under investigations by Economic
                Offences Wing, Banking – 2 and reregistered as their own FIR No.
                5 of 2026.”



11.     List both Writ Petitions for compliance of the order on

28.09.2026.


12.     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.


13.     Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.



                                                     (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                8 of 8