Bombay High Court
MAJID ASHFAQUE KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR is quashed and the petitioner is ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000.
Summary
Majid Ashfaque Khan, an accused in a cheating case, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and related proceedings after the complainant, his nephew, consented to a settlement. The court noted that the petition is covered by precedents such as Lovely Salhotra v. State of NCT Delhi and Alpesh Patel v. State of Maharashtra, allowing the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (and analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash criminal complaints where there is no prima facie case or where the dispute is civil in nature. Citing the Bhajan Lal guidelines, the court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed if justice so requires, though serious offences like murder or rape are generally excluded. The court ordered the FIR to be quashed and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner to be paid to a charitable trust, emphasizing the need to deter misuse of criminal law. The petition was allowed subject to payment of costs and the matter was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a consensual settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (and Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the complaint.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing scenario.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- consent settlement
- costs in criminal proceedings
- inherent powers of High Court
- cheating offence
- civil dispute in criminal case
Judgment
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 OF 2026
Majid Ashfaque Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Sadanand Shetty, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
Mr. Arshad Khan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shetty, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Talhar,
learned APP for State and Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for Respondent
No. 2.
2. Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 is permitted
to file his Vakalatnama in the Registry within a period of two weeks
from today which shall be accepted by the Registry.
3. Present Application is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of
the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Petitioner - Majid Ashfaque Khan is arraigned one of the
accused in the present offence. His name is not reflected in the FIR
which has been filed. His name has been subsequently added by way
1 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
of supplementary statement recorded subsequently. Charge against
the Petitioner is only for cheating.
5. The parties have reconciled their dispute. Petitioner and the
Complainant are relatives of each other. They are uncle and nephew.
Consent affidavit of the Complainant dated 11.06.2026 is taken on
record. I have personally interacted with the parties who are present in
Court with the able assistance of the learned Advocates.
6. Case of the Applicant before me is clearly covered by the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs.
State of NCT Delhi and Anr. (Supra)1 and of this Court in the case of
Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Other2 . Hence there can be no impediment in allowing the present
Application for quashing the Complaint qua the Petitioner before me
who is accused No. 1 in the present crime.
7. 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
1 Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017 decided on 10 th April 2017
2 Criminal Writ Petition No.3721 of 2018 Decided on 17.03.2023
2 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
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.
8. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal3 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.
9. In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute or
the lis between them is purely civil and commercial or matrimonial
3 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
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”.
10. 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
4 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
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.
11. 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.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his actions resulting in the
complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties
5 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
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 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.
13. Petitioner through his Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs
amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today..
14. 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 (a) which read thus:-
“a) that the criminal complaint being C. C. No. PW/597/2016
pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 66th
Court, Andheri, at Mumbai, and the C. R. No. 245/2015
registered with the Powai Police Station, Mumbai be quashed and
set aside qua the present Petitioner;"
6 of 7
175. CRI WP-3070-26.odt
15. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 22nd October, 2026.
16. Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show
compliance on the returnable date for compliance. If he does 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.
17. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.10.09
14:53:17 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…