SHADAB NAWAB ALI SHAIKH AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                               79.WP.2370.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2370 OF 2026

       Shadab Nawab Ali Shaikh and Ors.                   .. Petitioners
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      .. Respondents

                                   ....................
        Mr. Hitesh V. Jain, Advocate for Petitioners.
        Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent – State.
        Mr. Alok Pandey, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
        Mr. Yuvraj Khairnar, Colaba Police Station present.
                                    ......…...........

                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                   DATE         : AUGUST 31, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Rao,

       learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate

       for Respondent No.2.


       2.        In the present case, the Petitioners and Complainant had an

       unfortunate incident near Kala Ghoda, Mumbai while the Complainant

       was ushering vehicles for parking and the motorcycle handle

       accidentally brushed against the hand of the First Informant, which led

       to the incident in question and escalated into a full-blown fight. The

       incident occurred on 15.08.2023.


       3.        Parties have now reconciled their disputes and have

       persuaded the Court to allow them to carry on with their lives. Though

                                                                           1 of 6
                                                       79.WP.2370.2026.doc


initially the FIR was registered for causing simple hurt, it was

subsequently converted into a case for grievous hurt. The Consent

Affidavit of the Complainant dated 29.08.2024 is filed today. It is

taken on record. The Complainant does not wish to pursue the matter

any further and has given his unequivocal consent for quashing of the

proceedings.


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.


5.           In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                   2 of 6
                                                          79.WP.2370.2026.doc


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.


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”.


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



                                                                      3 of 6
                                                      79.WP.2370.2026.doc


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.


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

                                                                  4 of 6
                                                          79.WP.2370.2026.doc


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 both the

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

Hence, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten

Thousand Only) to A.K. Munshi Yojana’s 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 one week from the date of uploading of this order.

Receipt of payment of costs shall be placed before the Court for

                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                                79.WP.2370.2026.doc


                                  compliance.


                                  10.       Considering that the incident occurred on the spur of the

                                  moment without any premeditation or planning, the Petition is allowed

                                  in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

                                            “a.   that the FIR No. 200 of 2023 registered by the Colaba
                                                  Police Station at the instance of Krishnamohan Balram
                                                  Pandey i.e. the Respondent No. 2 for the alleged offence
                                                  committed u/s 326, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and the Police
                                                  Warrant Case No. 264 of 2024 pending before the 8 th
                                                  Court of the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate At
                                                  Esplanade, Mumbai Registered pursuant to filing of
                                                  Chargesheet in FIR No. 200 of 2023 be quashed by this
                                                  Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 528 of
                                                  Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

                                  11.       It is further clarified that PWC No.264 of 2024 is also

                                  quashed and set aside.


                                  12.       List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding

                                  payment of costs on 15th September 2026.


                                  13.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.




                                                                                 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

        Ajay
               Digitally signed
               by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01
               10:12:32 +0530




                                                                                                               6 of 6