Bombay High Court
ROHAN PRABHAKAR BACHEWARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR is quashed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.25,000 to a charitable trust.
Summary
The petition arose from a land sale dispute that led to multiple civil suits and an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The parties later reconciled through a Memorandum of Understanding and a consent affidavit, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, referencing the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs. It held that the offence was not heinous and the dispute was essentially civil, allowing the petition to be granted. However, the Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner to be paid to a charitable trust, emphasizing deterrence against misuse of criminal law. The petition was therefore allowed, the FIR quashed, and the cost order directed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust can be quashed on the parties' consent under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the offence is of a nature that permits quashing despite being non‑compoundable.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing proceeding.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CrPC
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- settlement deed
- costs order
- high court inherent powers
- civil dispute
Judgment
69-WP-3602-25.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2025
Rohan Prabhakar Bachewar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Dushyant Pagare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Saurav N. Katkar a/w. Mr. Ajinkya Desai h/f. Mr. Shantanu S.
Raktate for Respondent No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pagare, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Nakhwa,
learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Katkar, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by parties on the ground of "consent
quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the
respective parties and learned APP, I have perused the entire record of
the case. I do not find it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety
herein for the sake of brevity.
3. Dispute between parties pertains to Sale Deed of land under the
Memorandum of Understanding leading to delay and filing of cross
Civil Suits bearing Nos. 4950 of 2010, 535 of 2010 and 330 of 2012.
Dispute has arisen due to Performance Agreement, Agreement to Sale,
Complaint before the EOW, allotment made by CIDCO, leading to
1 of 6
69-WP-3602-25.doc
filing of FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust.
4. Parties have reconciled their dispute under Memorandum of
Understanding-cum-Settlement Deed and consent affidavit of
Respondent No.2 - Complainant is placed on record. The Complainant
has no further grievances in the matter.
5. Consent affidavit dated 7th July 2026 of the Complainant is
filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on record.
The contents of the said affidavit prima facie show that the entire
dispute and settlement / issue now stands resolved and hence parties
now want to put an end to the criminal proceedings.
6. 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
2 of 6
69-WP-3602-25.doc
and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from
case to case.
7. 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.
8. 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”.
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 6
69-WP-3602-25.doc
9. 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.
10. 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
4 of 6
69-WP-3602-25.doc
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.
11. 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.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
5 of 6
69-WP-3602-25.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.
Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree
to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
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)’ . which read thus:-
“(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus,
writ of certiorari or a Writ in the nature of mandamus and / or
certiorari on any other appropriate writ, order or directions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby quashing and
setting aside First Information Report being CR. NO. 0628 of 2024
(EXHIBIT-A) registered with Respondent No. 1 Police station i.e. Sector
1, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Police Station.”
13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 24th September 2026.
14. Advocate for Petitioner in Petition shall remain present and
show compliance on behalf of 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 to Petition.
15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
6 of 6
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
10:51:01 +0530
Checking your session…