M/S D. C. AMBER DEVELOPERS LLP AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                           62-WP-243-25

rsk

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                           WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2025

      M/s d. C. Amber Developers LLP And Ors                    .. Petitioners
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                         .. Respondents

                            ....................
       Mr. Sohail Ahmed i/b Mr. Rajendra Rathod, Advocates for
        Petitioners.
       Mr. Veerdhaval Deshmukh a/w. Ameyprasad Atigre, Advocates for
        Respondent No.2.
       Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
                                      ...................

                                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                     DATE          : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.

      Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Newton,

      learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.


      2.      This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the CRPC/BNSS by

      parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the able assistance

      of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and learned APP, I

      have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find it necessary to

      delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of brevity.


      3.      Dispute pertains to complaint by a member of the Society

      regarding redevelopment . Accused person is the developer.




                                                                                 1 of 6
                                                             62-WP-243-25


4.     The parties have resolved their differences and by consent terms

dated 07.05.2026, they are contained in the order of Division Bench of

this Court in Writ Petition (L) 14010 of 2026. Mr. Deshmukh submits

that the consent affidavit dated 29.08.2026 has been filed by

Respondent No.2 – Complainant. I have perused the same. In view of

the aforesaid order, consent terms and the consent affidavit there is no

impediment in allowing the present petition.


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 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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                   2 of 6
                                                              62-WP-243-25


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.


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

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



                                                                    3 of 6
                                                              62-WP-243-25


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.


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

                                                                    4 of 6
                                                               62-WP-243-25


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,

Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- towards the Corpus

of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, vocational

training centres and which also 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, 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

                                                                     5 of 6
                                                                             62-WP-243-25


      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 Petition deserves to

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

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

                     “(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR registered by
                     Nagpada Police Station on 17.12.2024 Under Section 409, 420, 464,
                     r/w 34 of IPC. In pursuant to the said order dated 13/12/2024 passed
                     by the Metropolitan Magistrate 69th Court Mazgoan, Mumbai against
                     the Petitioners .
                     C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash Chargesheet and set aside
                     an order dated 21.07.2025 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 69th
                     Court at Mazgaon wherein the cognizance against the present
                     Petitioners is taken under section 420,409,464 & 34 of IPC registered
                     with Nagpada Police station and subsequently quash the CC No.
                     998/PW/25 pending before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 69th Court
                     at Mazgoan.”


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

      payment of costs on 24th September 2026.


      13.            Advocates in Petition 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 to Petition.


      14.            Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


rsk                                                   [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                 Digitally signed
                 by RAVINDRA
       RAVINDRA MOHAN
       MOHAN    AMBERKAR
       AMBERKAR Date:
                 2026.09.04
                 18:07:20 +0530
                                                                                    6 of 6