Bombay High Court
VINAY KAILASH GUPTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR as to Accused No.2 (the petitioner) on the ground of the complainant’s settlement, while leaving the FIR operative against the remaining accused.
Summary
A dispute arose in a restaurant where the complainant brushed an accused's chair, leading to verbal abuse and a physical fight involving three accused. An FIR (No. 566 of 2024) was lodged under IPC sections 324, 323, 504 and 34. The petitioner, Accused No.2, sought a partial quash of the FIR on the basis of a settlement with the complainant, who consented to withdraw the complaint against him but not against the other two accused. The High Court examined the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and relied on precedents such as Lovely Salhotra v. State of NCT Delhi, Alpesh Patel v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Finding that the settlement justified relief for the petitioner and that quashing would serve the ends of justice, the Court ordered the FIR to be set aside as to Accused No.2 while leaving the proceedings against the others untouched. The writ petition was therefore allowed in part and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court pursuant to Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the petitioner.
- Whether the consent of the complainant to withdraw the complaint against one accused suffices to quash the FIR against that accused despite the presence of other accused who have not consented.
- Whether the offences alleged (IPC 324, 323, 504, 34) are compoundable or can be quashed under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Legislation cited
- Bombay National Security Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 504
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- settlement
- partial quash
- high court inherent powers
- non‑compoundable offence
Judgment
73.WP.3342.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3342 OF 2026
Vinay Kailash Gupta .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chanchal Singh a/w. Mr. Ranveersingh Solanki, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Prabhu, Khar Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Phad, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. The incident in question happened at the spur of the
moment when the two groups were sitting next to each other in a
restaurant having dinner. Respondent No.2 – Complainant brushed the
chair of Accused No.3 which led to a verbal altercation and it ended up
in abuses and a physical fight.
3. The complaint itself shows that Accused Nos.1 and 3 were
violent and exchanged a lot of abuses and threats. In the process,
Accused No.2 has been alleged to have hit the Complainant on his back
with his hand.
1 of 4
73.WP.3342.2026.doc
4. Today, when the matter is placed before me, I have
interacted with the Complainant on a video call with the able
assistance of the learned Advocate before me. Complainant himself
appears to be a well educated person and is a businessman. He is a
young person. He has explained to me that insofar as the present
Petitioner is concerned, he has had a reconciliation with him and in
view of the request made by Petitioner and his demeanor, he has on
his own volition agreed to forget the incident qua him and seek partial
quashing of the FIR.
5. However, when I pointedly asked him about the other two
accused persons, he would submit that because of the aggression
shown by them and the stance taken by them, he is not ready and
willing to agree for consent quashing of the present FIR qua the other
two accused persons, namely Accused Nos.1 and 3.
6. Case of the Petitioner 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. 1 and of this Court in the case of Alpesh
Arvindbhai Patel and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other 2.
Hence, there can be no impediment in allowing the present Writ
Petition for quashing the complaint qua the Petitioner before me, who
is 1 out of the 3 accused persons in the present crime.
1 Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017 – Decided on 10.04.2017.
2 Criminal Writ Petition No.3721 of 2018 Decided on 17.03.2023
2 of 4
73.WP.3342.2026.doc
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
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 Lal 3 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
3 1992 AIR 604
3 of 4
73.WP.3342.2026.doc
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 view of the issue which is involved and the manner in
which the incident had occurred and in view of the specific consent
given by Respondent No.2 for partial consent of quashing qua the
present Petitioner, I am inclined to accept the case of Petitioner for
quashing of the present FIR partly.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and also the fact that
Petitioner before me is the bread winner of his family and he also is an
educated person. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stand allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-
“(a) quash and set aside FIR No. 566 of 2024 dated
10.06.2024 registered with Khar Police Station, Mumbai,
under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and the consequent Charge-sheet and all
proceedings in T.C. No. 2698/PW/2024 pending before
the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th
Court, Bandra, Mumbai, in so far as the same relate to
and are against the Petitioner (Accused No. 2), alone, on
the basis of the settlement arrived at between the
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.”
11. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.
12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.10.01
18:54:27 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…