Bombay High Court
MURTAZA HASAN ALI NETTERWALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is allowed; the FIR is quashed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs 1,00,000 to a charitable foundation.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashment of FIR No.341 of 2025 filed under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent power of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Both parties had reconciled their dispute through a community‑mediated settlement and submitted consent documents. The Court examined the scope of Section 528 (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines on when an FIR may be quashed, noting that non‑heinous, private‑dispute offences may be dismissed. It held that the petition could be allowed but imposed costs of Rs 1,00,000 on the petitioner to be paid to a charitable foundation, to deter misuse of criminal law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the FIR quashed, and a stay was granted on further proceedings pending compliance with the cost order.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be quashed on the basis of a consent settlement under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the High Court may impose costs on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing proceeding.
- Whether the nature of the offences (non‑heinous, private dispute) permits quashment despite being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- consent quashing
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 528
- Section 482
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of private disputes
- non‑heinous offence
- Article 226
Judgment
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3465 OF 2026
Murtaz Hasan Ali Netterwala .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Hitesh Yadav a/w. Mr. Pavan S. Ghatkar, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Mufaddal Zakiruddin, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
PSI – Nilesh T. More, Pydhonie Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Zakiruddin,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in the matter of Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) in connection with
First Information Report No.341 of 2025 registered with Pydhonie
Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).
3. Parties are before Court and reconciled their disputes and
are before the Court for consent quashing. Consent terms have been
1 of 7
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
executed between the parties on 01.04.2026, copy of which is
appended at Exhibit - C, page No.125 whereas Affidavit of Consent of
the Complainant dated 25.04.2026 is appended at Exhibit - D, page
194. I have perused both the documents.
4. The parties are before the Court. I have interacted with them
in Court and they both persuade the Court to quash the criminal
proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between them due to
intervention of the elders of the community. Considering the lis
between the parties which is only a year old and the parties having
reconciled their dispute, it would be in the fitness of things if the
criminal proceedings are quashed and both the parties are allowed to
lead their normal lives without the ignominy of the criminal
proceedings looming large on them.
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
2 of 7
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
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 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 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
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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 7
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
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 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
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
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 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.1,00,000/- to Fadak
Welfare Foundation which caters to the needs and necessities of
windows and orphans. The details of the Charitable Organization are
as under:-
5 of 7
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
Name of Trust : Fadak Welfare Foundation
Name of Bank: RBL Bank Limited
Name of Branch: Crawford Market Branch
Account Number: 409002513578
IFSC Code: RATN0000193
11. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned
Advocates agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the above charity
within 2 weeks from today.
12. 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 clauses ‘a and c’ which read thus:-
“a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
well as inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSs) 2023; thereby quash and set
aside the FIR No.341 of 2025 registered at Pydhonie Police
Station for the offence punishable u/s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) Act 2023 together with all
proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the Consent Terms
recorded in Exhibit ‘’ and the Consent Affidavit annexed as
Exhibit ‘’.
b) …
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition,
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant stay to all further
proceedings before the Hon’ble 2nd Court Of Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, At Mazgaon, Mumbai in relation to FIR No.341 of
2025 registered at Pydhonie Police Station for the offence
punishable u/s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, (BNS) Act 2023; be stayed;
6 of 7
76.WP.3465.2026.doc
13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 16th September 2026.
14. Advocate in Petition for Petitioner shall remain present and
show compliance on behalf of Petitioner on the returnable date for
compliance. If the Advocate 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/parties to Petition.
15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.04
11:09:34 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…