Bombay High Court
ALNESH AKIL SOMJI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the consent quashing of the FIR and MPID case, imposed costs on the petitioners, and set aside the look‑out circular.
Summary
The petitioners and respondents entered into a settlement MOU dated 15‑12‑2022, acknowledging receipt of amounts and agreeing to quash the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No.153/2021 and the related MPID Special Case. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 528 of the BNSS, examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal on consent quashing. It held that, since the dispute was essentially civil/commercial and the offences (IPC 406, 409, 420 r/w 34) were not heinous, the petition could be allowed, but costs of Rs.25,000 were imposed on the petitioners to deter misuse of criminal law. The look‑out circular against the petitioners was also set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed by allowing the consent quashing and ordering costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding arising from a civil/commercial dispute can be quashed by consent under Section 482 CRPC and Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the offences alleged (IPC 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 and MPID Act sections 3,4) are non‑heinous and amenable to consent quashing.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioners in a consent‑quashing petition.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 409, 420
- Maharashtra Prevention of Illicit Drugs Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- civil settlement
- costs in criminal proceedings
- look‑out circular
- FIR quash
- MPID Act
- abuse of process
Judgment
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3375 OF 2025
Alnesh Akil Somji and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate i/by Mr. prasad Nagargoje for
Petitioners.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
API – Mr. Chhabu Berad, Crime Branch, Pune City present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Petitioners and
Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. The parties have reconciled their disputes and differences
and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
15.12.2022, copy of which is appended at page No.881 of the Petition.
There is only one Complainant, however there are five private
Respondents. Out of the five private Respondents, Respondent Nos.2, 3
and 4 are present before the Court. The Principal Complainant is also
present before the Court. Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have been duly
served. Affidavit of service has been filed. Respondent Nos.4 and 6
have accepted service. Respondent No.5 was not available. However,
1 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
the MOU categorically admits and acknowledges that the said
Respondents have received the amount in terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also
signed the MOU.
3. In view of the above, there can be no impediment in
allowing the Petition by consent quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The 3 consent Affidavits of Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are placed at
page Nos. 892 onwards. I have perused the same. In view of the
Affidavit of service having been filed and Respondent Nos.5 and 6
having not appeared before the Court, this Court cannot await their
presence and thereby delay or adjourn the adjudication of the present
matter.
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
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
2 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
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,
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.
4 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
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 their actions resulting
in 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
5 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
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 as directed.
10. Insofar as Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, it is
clarified that they have received the flat in lieu of the money that they
had paid to the Petitioners and that acknowledgment is found in the
MOU. It is clarified that any Look-out Circular qua the Petitioners
before the Court stands quashed and set aside.
11. In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates
persuade the Court to allow the Writ Petition by consent quashing. The
Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which read
thus:-
“a. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India calling for the records of FIR No.
153/2021 dated 01/11/2015 under Section 406, 409, 420
r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act, filed with
Koregaon Park Police Station, and the Charge Sheet in
MPID Special Case NO. 49/2022 pending before the court
of the Ld. MPID Special Court at Pune, and after looking
6 of 7
65.WP.3375.2025.doc
into the legality and propriety thereof as well as the
deposition of the Respondent No.2 to 6 to quash and set
aside the FIR No. 153/2021 dated 01/11/2015; under
Section 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4
of MPID Act, filed with Koregaon Park Police Station and
the Charge Sheet in MPID Special Case No 49/2022
pending before the court of the Ld. MPID Special Court at
Pune and also quash and set aside the MPID Special Case
No 49/2022 before Ld. MPID Special Court at Pune.
b. that the Look Out Notice in C.R. No. 0153 of 2021 by
Koregaon Park Police Station issued against the Petitioners
and may travel restrictions imposed against the Petitioners
may be quashed and set aside.”
12. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition is disposed.
13. List the Writ Petition on Board on 5th October 2026. To be
placed under the caption ‘For Compliance’.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.19
13:01:19 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…