GAURAV CHAVAN AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                            109. WP 3397-2025.doc

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3397 OF 2025

                      Gaurav Chavan & anr.                              .Petitioners

                                 Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                   .Respondents

ANAND                 Mr. Aniruddha Lad a/w. Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocates, for the
SUDHAKAR              Petitioners
SUDAME                Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
                      Mr. Ojas Kocharekar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
SUDAME
Date: 2026.09.19
15:04:13 +0530                            CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE     : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Lad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Palkar,

                      learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Kocharekar, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      Parties are young offenders before me, who had a scuffle after

                      finishing their law examination due to which the FIR came to be

                      lodged on account of the First Informant suffering simple injury. Parties

                      have reconciled and have urged the Court to quash the present

                      proceeding by consent quashing so that the parties can be free to

                      pursue their goals in life without the ignominy of the Criminal

                      proceedings.

                      3.      Considering the issue between the parties, I am inclined to

                      Anand                             1 of 4
                                                     109. WP 3397-2025.doc

accept the request made by the parties. Consent Affidavit of

Respondent No. 2 dated 13.08.2025 is filed in Court. Respondent No. 2

is present in Court and confirms filing of the Consent Affidavit. The

Petition, therefore, stands allowed.

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

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 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
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                             2 of 4
                                                        109. WP 3397-2025.doc

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

costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court

by “consent quashing”.


7.      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. There shall be no order as to
Anand                                3 of 4
                                                             109. WP 3397-2025.doc

costs.


8.       In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be

allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ which reads thus:-

            “A)   This Hon’ble High Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
                  F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. 79 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025, registered
                  with Deccan Police Station, Pune, for alleged offences Punishable
                  under Sections 118(1), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the
                  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 off and in the meantime.”

9.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.




                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                  4 of 4