RAVINDRA NARAYAN SHETYE AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                           79. WP 3461-2026.doc

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3461 OF 2026

                      Ravindra Narayan Shetye & ors.                  .Petitioners

                                    Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                 .Respondents

                      Mr. Waqar Pathan a/w. Mr. Creesh Jain & Mr. Rishi Mehta, Advocates,
                      for the Petitioners
         Digitally
         signed by
         ANAND        Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
                      Mr. Santosh U. Pawar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
         2026.09.29
         10:51:16     Mr. Shahid Khan, PSI, Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai present
         +0530



                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE    : 18.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard Mr. Pathan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners,

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

                      learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      The dispute between the parties with regard to the amounts

                      exchanged between them stands reconciled. Parties have entered into a

                      Memorandum of Understanding (for short “MOU”) from Deed of

                      Settlement. Copy of which is appended at page No. 74 of the Petition.

                      The entire amount has been repaid back by the Petitioners to the

                      Complainant. The Consent Affidavit of the Complainant dated

                      16.07.2026 is appended at page No. 129. The rights and obligations

                      stated in the MOU have already been fructified, as informed by both

                      Anand                             1 of 6
                                                      79. WP 3461-2026.doc

the parties. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any impediment

in allowing the present Petition, as requested by the parties by consent

quashing. In that view of the matter, the present Petition stands

allowed.

3.      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.

4.      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 6
                                                         79. WP 3461-2026.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.


5.      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”.


6.      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 6
                                                        79. WP 3461-2026.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.


7.      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 6
                                                         79. WP 3461-2026.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.


8.      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

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


Anand                               5 of 6
                                                               79. WP 3461-2026.doc

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.

The Petitioners are present in Court and through                   their learned

Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


9.      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 quash and set aside against
                 the Petitioners in FIR No. 779 of 2026 registered with the officers
                 of Dahisar Police Station for section punishable under 318(4),
                 316(2), 336(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on such
                 terms and conditions deems fit in view and interest of justice.”

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

payment of costs on 05.10.2026.


11.     Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners.


12.     Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

                                                       (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)


Anand                                  6 of 6