Bombay High Court
SANDIP BABU JAITAPKAR AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 (and Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the FIR and dismiss the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, young offenders running an electrical business, filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of FIR No. 38 of 2025 lodged by Chembur Police. The original complainant filed an affidavit of consent stating that full compensation had been paid to the deceased's wife and that she had no further grievances. Relying on the consent affidavit, the provisions of Section 482 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court examined whether the FIR could be dismissed without prejudice to justice. The Court held that, given the settlement and lack of grievance, the FIR could be quashed to prevent abuse of process. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the FIR was set aside, and the criminal proceedings were dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of a consent affidavit and payment of compensation.
- Whether the High Court has the inherent power to dismiss criminal proceedings in cases involving non‑compoundable offences when settlement occurs.
- Whether quashing the FIR would be in the interest of justice and prevent abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- Section 482
- quashing FIR
- consent affidavit
- compensation settlement
- high court inherent powers
- abuse of process
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
- non‑compoundable offences
Judgment
21.WP.2735.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2735 OF 2025
Sandip Babu Jaitapkar and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Arun K. Rajput, Advocate h/for Mr. Amrish R. Salunke for
Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Orig.
Complainant.
PSI – Ms. Rupali Sanap, Chembur Police Station present.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Rajput, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Karmakar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr.
Gupta, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – original Complainant.
2. This is an Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report.
3. Respondent No.2 has filed the Affidavit of Consent / No
Objection dated 24.09.2026. Said Affidavit prima facie shows that the
compensation amount has been paid to the wife of the deceased,
pursuant to the last hearing by way of RTGS transfer as stated therein
and also in addition to the earlier payment made to her and also the
fact that she has accepted the same and the Complainant has no
1 of 3
21.WP.2735.2025.doc
further grievances whatsoever.
4. In that view of the matter, adhering to the request made by
the party and more specifically the Petitioners before me who are
young offenders who had started their electrical business, I am inclined
to accept the request for consent quashing and quash the criminal
proceedings.
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.
2 of 3
21.WP.2735.2025.doc
6. 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 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 view of the above, learned Advocates persuade the Court
to allow the Petition by consent quashing. The Petition stands allowed
in terms of prayer clause (i) which read thus:-
“i) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be please to quash
and set aside Crime lodged at the instance of Chembur
Police Station, Mumbai Vide C.r. No. 38 of 2025.”
8. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition is disposed.
9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
1 1992 AIR 604
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.28
09:36:34 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.