RAHUL ASHOK KUMAR AJMANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                       77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2026

           Rahul Ashok Kumar Ajmani                                  .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                               .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Ms. Jyoti Chavan a/w Mr. Akshay Tayade, Advocates for Petitioner
            Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for State
            Mr. Dharmesh Joshi i/by T.D. Joshi & Associates, Advocates for
             Respondent No. 2
            Mr. Aniket Tambe - Respondent No. 2 present through VC
            Ms. Ashwini More, PSI, Kherwadi Police Station
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : AUGUST 31, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Palkar,

           learned APP for State and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent

           No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under Section 528 under the provisions

           of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for

           short "BNSS") for quashing FIR bearing No. 96 of 2026 registered with

           Kherwadi Police Station.


           3.       Dispute in the present case has occurred due to a motor car

           accident which ultimately led to the filing of FIR under under the

           extant provisions of BNS. Considering that both the Petitioner and the



                                                                                       1 of 7
                                                     77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt


Respondent No. 2 - complainant are the affected persons and now

wish to reconcile their differences and opinions, they have prayed to

the Court to consider the present petition for consent quashing.


4.       Respondent No. 2 has filed consent affidavit dated 28.06.2026

wherein he has submitted that due to the amicable settlement arrived

at between the parties, there is no claim whatsoever and he has no

objection for quashing the FIR. Said affidavit is taken on record. I have

interacted with both the parties. Petitioner is present before the Court.

Respondent No. 2 has appeared through VC. In view thereof, there can

be no impediment in allowing the petition since the parties have no

grievances and should be allowed to carry on with their respective

lives.


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
                                                        77. CRI WP-2335-26.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
                                                     77. CRI WP-2335-26.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
                                                     77. CRI WP-2335-26.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 Petitioner for his action resulting in the

complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties

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

Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- towards the corpus

of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special

                                                                     5 of 7
                                                            77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt


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. Petitioner is present in

Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity.


11.   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 clause ‘b’ which read thus:-

          “(b)    That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Order and
                 quash the FIR bearing No. 0096 of 2026 dated 28.02.2026.
                 registered with Kherwadi Police Station. for offences punishable
                 under Section 281,125,324(4) of BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita)
                 Act 2023. r/w 184, 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. against
                 the Petitioner on any terms and Conditions as this Hon'ble Court
                 deems fit and proper and the Petitioner be acquitted.

12.    It is further clarified that subsequent case i.e. PS/2645/2026 is

also quahsed.


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

of costs on 16th September 2026.


                                                                            6 of 7
                                                                  77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt


           14.        Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show

           compliance on behalf of Petitioner on the returnable date for

           compliance. If does not 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 Petitioner/parties to the

           Petition.


           15.        Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                      Digitally
                      signed by
                      RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA   MOHAN
           MOHAN      AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR   Date:
                      2026.09.03
                      18:03:20
                      +0530




                                                                                  7 of 7