Bombay High Court

SUNNY KARMVEER DHILOD AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the FIRs and pending criminal proceedings, and ordered the petitioners to pay costs of Rs 25,000 each.

Summary

The petitioners, Mathadi workers involved in a violent dispute over loading and unloading contracts, were charged under several IPC sections including 307 and 324. Both parties filed cross‑FIRs but later sought to settle the matter and filed consent affidavits requesting quashing of the FIRs under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and Section 528 of the BNSS). The High Court examined the scope of its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, referring to the Bhajan Lal guidelines, and considered whether costs could be imposed in consent‑quashing matters. It held that, since the offences were not heinous and the dispute was essentially civil, the petitions could be allowed, but the petitioners must pay Rs 25,000 each to a charitable trust. Accordingly, the FIRs and pending criminal proceedings were quashed, subject to the directed costs.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 482 CRPC (and Section 528 BNSS) to quash FIRs arising from a private settlement.
Whether non‑compoundable offences such as those under IPC sections 307 and 324 can be quashed on consent.
The court's power to impose costs on parties seeking consent quashing.
The adequacy of the consent affidavits and absence of prima facie case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 337, 34, 385, 427, 504, 506
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)
Public Trust Act, 1950

Subjects

consent quashing
Section 482 CRPC
Section 528 BNSS
costs in criminal proceedings
Mathadi workers
FIR quash
non‑compoundable offences
abuse of process

Judgment

58-WP-3589-24.doc

rsk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3589 OF 2024

Vipin Satyawan Khandagale And Ors .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents

WRIT PETITION NO.3613 OF 2024

Sunny Karmveer Dhilod and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Ajay Gaikwad i/b Mr. Siddharth Herode, Advocates for
Petitioners in WP No.3589/2024 and for Respondent No.2 in WP
No.3613/2024.
 Mr. Om Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP
No.3589/2024 and for Petitioners in WP No.3613/2024.
 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State in both
Writ Petitions.
 Mr. Ganesh Rathod, PSI, Yerwada Police Station, Pune.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP

No.3589/2024 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No.3613/2024; Mr.

Gandhi, learned Advocate Respondent No.2 in WP No.3589/2024 and

for Petitioners in WP No.3613/2024; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for

Respondent No.1 – State in both Petitions.

2. Both Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the CRPC by

parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the able assistance

1 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

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. Petitioners in both cross Petitions are ‘Mathadi’ workers

known to each other since several years and all residing in the same

locality. Dispute between the two parties occurred due to loading and

unloading of material on the construction site of a developer during

negotiations by pelting stones on each others during the scuffle,

thereby inviting charges under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860. Members from both the sides suffered fractures and

grievous injuries. Charge by both the sides is of criminal intimidation

for obtaining contract of loading and unloading of materials or goods

at the construction site and the incident in question.

4. The gist between the parties is with regard to two cross FIRs.

Since the parties desired to resolve their differences, the Court should

make every effort to consider their application. In that view of the

matter the consent affidavits of both the parties are filed which are

dated 25.04.2024. I have perused the same. To this there is no

impediment to allow the petitions.

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

2 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

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 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.

1 1992 AIR 604

3 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

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 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,

4 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

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 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. The scuffle between the two parties could have led to

fatalities also because of its violent nature.

5 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

11. 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 in WP No.3589/2024 and WP No.3613/2024 shall

pay costs of Rs.25,000/- each 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 [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. All Petitioners are

present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the

aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

12. In view of the above matter, the both Petitions deserves to be

allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so

allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ which read thus:-

6 of 7
58-WP-3589-24.doc

“ IN CRI. WRIT PETITION NO 3589/2024
(B) That the Present Petition may kindly be allowed and by an
appropriate writ or direction or order of this Hon’ble Court, the F.I.R.
bearing No.45/2024 registered with the Respondent No.1 i.e. Yerwada
Police Station, Pune, u/s. 307, 326, 324, 337, 323, 504, 506, 427 and
34 of the IPC and Criminal proceeding No. RCC 6520/25 pending
before Hon’ble Sessions Court, Pune, may kindly be quashed and set
aside and the Petitioners may kindly be permitted to compound the
said matter with the Respondent No.2.;
IN CRI. WRIT PETITION NO 3613/2024
(B) That the Present Petition may kindly be allowed and by an
appropriate writ or direction or order of this Hon’ble Court, the F.I.R.
bearing No.44/2024 registered with the Respondent No.1 i.e. Yerwada
Police Station, Pune, u/s. 307, 385, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 of
IPC and 37 (1), (3) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act and Criminal
proceeding no/RCC/629/2025 pending before Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Pune, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Petitioners may
kindly be permitted to compound the said matter with the Respondent
No.2.;”

13. List the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.

14. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain

present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the

returnable date for compliance. If they do 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/parties

to both Petitions.

15. Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
10:45:17 +0530

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…