Bombay High Court
AWINASH KUMAR GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., with costs of Rs.25,000 imposed on the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners and the State of Maharashtra sought the quashing of FIR No. 608/2024, filed under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and the Information Technology Act, on the basis that all investors had settled and a consent affidavit was filed. The High Court examined the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, referencing the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs where the prosecution would be an abuse of process. The Court held that, since the dispute was essentially civil/commercial and the offences were not heinous, the petition could be allowed, but imposed costs of Rs.25,000 on the petitioners to be paid to a charitable trust. The order directed payment within two weeks and listed compliance dates. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the FIR quashed, and the matter disposed subject to the cost order.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR filed under the MPID Act and IT Act can be quashed by consent under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the nature of the dispute and the offences permit quashing without violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether costs may be imposed on parties in a consent quashing proceeding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 409, 419, 420
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D)
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
- Public Trust Act — s. XXIX of 1950
- Society Registration Act — s. XXI of 1980
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- MPID Act
- Information Technology Act
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of civil dispute
- abuse of process
Judgment
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3253 OF 2025
Awinash Kumar Gupta and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Nikhilesh Pote, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Parichay Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 7.
PSI – R. G. Gujar, Malad Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pote, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Sharma,
learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 7
2. All Investors have duly settled as informed by learned
advocate for the Petitioner. Consent affidavit of the Complainant dated
07.07.2025 is appended at page No.746. I have perused it and taken
the same on record.
3. The statement of all Investors have been placed before the
Court in the form of a compilation.
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
1 of 6
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
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
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.
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 6
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
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
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,
3 of 6
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
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
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 his actions resulting in
4 of 6
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
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.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
within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
Petitioners are present in Court and through his learned Advocate
agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
10. 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 ‘a and b’ which read thus:-
“a) This Honourable Court be pleased to call for the record and
proceeding of First Information Report (FIR) vide crime no.
608/2024 dated 19.07.2024, u/s 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999 (M.P.I.D. Act), with 420,419,409,406, 34 along with
Section 66 (D) of Information Technology Act. at the Malad
Police Station at Mumbai and after going through the same and
5 of 6
152.WP.3253.2025.doc
satisfying about the legality, validity and propriety thereof, be
pleased to quash and 126 Set aside the same by exercising the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; including chargesheet and
Spl. Case No.101824/2025 proceeding pending before Ld.
Session Court Mumbai.
b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition all
further investigation with respect First Information Report (FIR)
vide crime no. 608/2024 dated 19.07.2024, u/s 3 and 4 of The
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 (M.P.I.D. Act), with 420,419,409,406,
34 along with Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, at
the Malad Police Station at Mumbai ”
11. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 22nd October 2026.
12. Advocate in Petition for Petitioners shall remain present and
show compliance on behalf of Petitioners on the returnable date for
compliance. If Advocate in Petition for Petitioners 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 to Petition.
13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:52:14 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…