Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED KAIF MOHAMMED YUSUF SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed FIR No. 73/2026 and the charge sheet, allowed the writ petitions, and ordered each petitioner to pay Rs 5,000 to a charitable institution.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two criminal writ petitions filed by a group of young offenders who were accused of causing grievous hurt in a parking dispute that escalated into a fight involving iron rods and bamboo sticks. Both the petitioners and the state agreed that the incident was a private dispute and sought quashing of the FIR (No. 73/2026) and charge sheet under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court, relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, held that the offence was not heinous and that quashing would serve the ends of justice. It ordered the FIR and charge sheet to be set aside and directed each petitioner to pay a cost of Rs 5,000 to a charitable special school. The petitions were allowed and the proceedings disposed of, subject to compliance with the cost order.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge sheet for grievous hurt arising from a private parking dispute can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Whether consent quashing is permissible for a non‑heinous offence.
- Whether the Court may impose costs on petitioners in a consent‑quashing order.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482
- Section 528
- grievous hurt
- consent quashing
- costs order
- young offenders
- parking dispute
- inherent powers of High Court
Judgment
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2467 OF 2026
Mohammed Kaif Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh and
Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2469 OF 2026
Abdul Gani Khan and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Afreen Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in both Writ Petitions.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Ruhi Singh, Advocate i/by Arihant Associate for Respondent
No.2.
PSI – B.L. Mahagaonkar, RAK Marg Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in both
the Writ Petitions; Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent – State and
Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is a group of two Writ Petitions which are being
disposed of by this common order. Criminal Writ Petition No.2467 of
2026 is listed at Sr. No.80 today. Insofar as Criminal Writ Petition
1 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
No.2469 of 2026 is concerned, learned Advocates inform the Court
that the matter was listed on Saturday, but the same has now been
adjourned to tomorrow. By consent of the parties, Criminal Writ
Petition No.2469 of 2026 is taken on board forthwith.
3. There are six Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.2467 of
2026, whereas there are eight Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition
No.2469 of 2026. The parties are the Complainants in their respective
Petitions. Thus, this is a case of cross-complaints by the parties against
each other. The charge against the parties is for causing grievous hurt.
The incident in question arose on account of a parking dispute between
the parties residing in Pathan Chawl compound in Wadala, Mumbai.
4. Most of the Petitioners are young offenders and therefore
both the learned Advocates persuade the Court to consider allowing
the present Petitions so that the Petitioners can lead meaningful and
good lives in society without the ignominy of a pending criminal
proceeding of this nature.
5. Both the learned Advocates jointly submit that the incident
in question occurred due to a parking dispute involving motorcycles
between the parties and unfortunately escalated to such an extent that
the parties started attacking each other with whatever came into their
hands. The weapons in question were an iron rod and bamboo sticks
which were lying around. I have perused the papers with the able
2 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
assistance of the learned Advocates and the learned APP. I am inclined
to accept the submissions made by both the learned Advocates for the
Petitioners in both the Criminal Writ Petitions and dispose of the same.
6. The Court should adequately give a chance to young
offenders who, on the spur of the moment, sometimes get caught in
the crosswinds of such an unfortunate incident which, unfortunately,
escalated into a full-blown fight. All the Petitioners are present before
the Court. I have interacted with all the Petitioners who are present in
Court. Almost all the Petitioners are young, save and except one or two
of them who appear to be elderly and may have intervened to de-
escalate the fight between the two groups.
7. What I find is that in such a situation, the Court has to step
in. Hence, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned
Advocates and allow both the Criminal Writ Petitions and quash the
criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners in question.
8. 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
3 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
1 1992 AIR 604
4 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
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”.
11. 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
5 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to
humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.
12. 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.
13. 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, 6 Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026 and 8 Petitioners
in Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026 are directed to pay costs of
6 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) each 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 two weeks from the date
of uploading of this order. All Petitioners are present in Court and
through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs
amount to the charity.
14. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026 deserves
to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is
so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-
“a. Quash and set aside FIR No. 73/2026 registered with RAK
Marg Police Station, Mumbai and chargeasheet against all
accused.”
15. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026 deserves
to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is
so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-
“a. Quash and set aside FIR No. 73/2026 registered with RAK
Marg Police Station, Mumbai and chargeasheet against all
7 of 8
80.WP.2467.2026.doc
accused.”
16. It is clarified that C.C. Nos.853/PW/2026 and
855/PW/20263 in both the aforesaid proceedings are also quashed
and set aside.
17. List both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order
regarding payment of costs on 15th September 2026. Advocates in
both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of all 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 in both Petitions.
18. Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.01
10:54:00 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…