VINAY REVAN BABAR PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                    80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3697 OF 2026

           Vinay Revan Babar Patil                          .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. S.G. Rajput a/w Mr. Ashish Rajput, Advocates for Petitioner
            Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
            P.S. Abrol, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                          ...................
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                         DATE          : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Rajput, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.

           Karmakar, learned APP for State and Abrol, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under Section 520 of the Bharatiya

           Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash

           the proceedings of R.C.C. No. 1685 of 2025 pending before the

           learned JMFC, CBD, Belapur for the offences punishable under

           Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.


           3.       The dispute between the parties with regard to property stands

           entirely settled by virtue of civil proceedings and other proceedings

           which have been withdrawn by the parties. The criminal proceedings

           are, therefore, sought to be withdrawn by virtue of by consent


                                                                                    1 of 7
                                                     80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


quashing. Consent affidavit dated 04.08.2026 is filed by Respondent

Nos. 2 to 4. I have perused the same. It gives reference to the Consent

Terms dated 30.07.2026 between the parties wherein the parties have

agreed to quash the present criminal proceeding. In that view of the

matter, adhering to the wishes of the parties, I am inclined to allow the

present Petition.


4.    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.




                                                                     2 of 7
                                                        80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


5.       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.


6.       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 7
                                                     80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


7.    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.


8.    Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs the

growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints


                                                                     4 of 7
                                                     80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


(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.


9.    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 is directed to pay costs of

Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered

NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level

towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community

development of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by

providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care,

promoting women empowerment by livelihood training and practical


                                                                     5 of 7
                                                   80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


vocational skill training programs in rural and urban areas, supports

skill development and health care access and emergency relief for

vulnerable community groups and at present providing complete

shelter, nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute

seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their

Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of

costs are as under:-


         10.Name of Bank:               11.Bank Of Maharashtra

       12.Account Number:                   13.60434381304

          14.IFSC Code:                    15.MAHB0002075

          16.MICR Code:                      17.423014102



Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.

Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik,

Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga

Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra,

Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.


18.   Petitioner through his Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs

amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today.




                                                                   6 of 7
                                                                                     80. CRI WP-3697-26.odt


             19.          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 (a) which read thus:-

                                    “a)    The proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 1685 of 2015
                                          pending against the Petitioner before the Ld. JMFC, CBD, Belapur,
                                          may be quashed;"



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

             payment of costs on 9th October, 2026.


             21.          Learned Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show

             compliance 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.


             22.          Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.




Amberkar                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.09.19
                      14:52:17
                      +0530




                                                                                                     7 of 7