DHAVAL VIMALKANT KAKKADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                  78. WP 3434-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3434 OF 2026

                      Dhaval Vimalkant Kakkad                                 .Petitioner

                                   Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                         .Respondents

                      Mr. Rahul O. Pandey a/w. Ms. Q. Y. Shaikh & Mr. Alok Singh,
                      Advocates, for the Petitioner
         Digitally
         signed by
         ANAND
                      Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.09.29
         10:49:57
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
         +0530



                                         DATE     : 18.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

                      Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State.

                      2.      The parties have reconciled their dispute. The Complainant

                      himself is an Advocate. The Consent Affidavit dated 10.09.2026 is

                      appended to the Petition. Against an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-,

                      Rs.32,00,000/-     has   been   paid       pack   and     received     by   the

                      Complainant/Respondent No. 2 by way of Demand Draft. Para 7 of the

                      Consent Affidavit dated 10.09.2026 states that in that view of the

                      matter, the present Petition may be allowed by the Court.

                      3.      Considering the request made by the parties before the Court,

                      the present Petition stands allowed.

                      Anand                             1 of 7
                                                      78. WP 3434-2026.doc

4.      I further clarify that pursuant to the FIR No. 689 of 2025, the

prosecution has filed Charge-sheet vide H. C. 1754/2026 in C. C.

PW/2019/2026. The said Charge-sheet is also quashed and set aside in

view of this order.

5.      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.

6.      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 7
                                                         78. WP 3434-2026.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.


7.      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”.


8.      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
Anand                                3 of 7
                                                        78. WP 3434-2026.doc

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.


9.      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

Anand                              4 of 7
                                                         78. WP 3434-2026.doc

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.


10.     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

seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs. Hence,

Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- 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

Anand                               5 of 7
                                                               78. WP 3434-2026.doc

[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.

The Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate

agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


11.     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 ‘b’ which read thus:-

           “b)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari
                 and/or such other appropriate writ, order and direction in the
                 nature of writ of certiorari thereby calling all the records, paper
                 investigation records including the F.I.R.No. 689 of 2025 dated
                 25.08.2025 registered by Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai and
                 after perusing the papers and records this Hon’ble court be pleased
                 to quash and/or set aside the F.I.R. No. 689 of 2025 dated
                 25.08.2025 in charge under section 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of
                 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the Petitioner.”

12.     List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 05.10.2026.


13.     Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the Petitioner 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.


Anand                                  6 of 7
                                                      78. WP 3434-2026.doc

14.     Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                 (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                              7 of 7