MANISH PATELversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                         107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2698 OF 2025

                      Madhu Sharma & ors.                                 .Petitioners

                                     Vs.
         Digitally
         signed by
         ANAND
                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                     .Respondents
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.09.19
         15:00:35
         +0530
                                                       WITH
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3766 OF 2025

                      Manish Patel                                        .Petitioner

                              Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                     .Respondents

                      Mr. Yash Palan a/w. Ms. Sonal Mahadik, Advocates, for the Petitioners
                      Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 2698
                      of 2025
                      Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 3766 of
                      2025
                      Ms. Neha Ahuja a/w. Mr. Amit Ahuja, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2

                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                           DATE    : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

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

                      Karmakar and Ms. Newton, learned APPs for Respondent No. 1 – State

                      and Ms. Ahuja, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.       The lis and dispute between the parties emanates from a purely

                      Civil issue which led to filing of present complaint for Criminal breach

                      Anand                             1 of 8
                                    107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

of trust. The amount involved was Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Parties have

exchanged the said amount today before me. I am informed that the

agreed amount of settlement is now given to the Complainant.

Complainant’s Affidavit dated 11.07.2026 is placed before me. I have

taken it on record. The Complainant has filed separate Affidavits in

both the matters for quashing of the FIR. The Complainant is present

physically in Court. He confirms filing of the consent Affidavits. I have

interacted with him. He is duly represented by the Advocate. He

confirms receipt of the said amount. All parties request the Court to

allow both Petitions by consent quashing as pending Criminal

proceedings are affecting their life, future prospectus and business.

3.      Insofar as W. P. No. 3766 of 2025 is concerned, in that case, his

role is one of the broker and no money transaction is involved. Since it

pertains to the same transaction in question in W. P. No.2698 of 2025

and the parties having given consent the Court is allowing it by consent

quashing. Hence, W. P. No. 3766 of 2025 is also allowed.

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


Anand                              2 of 8
                                      107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

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.

5.      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

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

Anand                                3 of 8
                                     107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

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”.


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

Anand                               4 of 8
                                    107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

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

(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

Anand                              5 of 8
                                     107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

at large while considering consent quashing.


9.      Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

I am of the opinion that all/both the Petitioners before me in both the

Writ Petitions, for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking

criminal proceedings against each other and now all/both the parties

seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners in both Petitions, should

pay costs. Hence, Petitioners in both Petitions are directed to pay costs

of Rs.7,500/- each in the two Petitions totalling to Rs.15,000/- 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

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

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

Anand                               6 of 8
                                        107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

10.     In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be

allowed as directed herein above. They are allowed in terms of the

prayer clauses as under :-


Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’

which reads thus :-

           “a)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
                 Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set
                 aside the FIR dated 14.04.2025 No. 82 of 2025 registered with
                 Marine Drive police station qua the Petitioners, for the offences
                 punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
                 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings initiated
                 therein qua the Petitioners.”



Writ Petition No. 3766 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’

which reads thus :-

           “a)   That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
                 Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set
                 aside the FIR dated 14.04.2025 No. 82 of 2025 registered with
                 ‘Marine Drive police station qua the Petitioners, for the offences
                 punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
                 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings initiated
                 therein qua the Petitioner.”



11.     List both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 28.09.2026.


12.     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


Anand                                  7 of 8
                                    107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc

of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order,

which shall be noted by the Petitioners.


13.     Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.



                                                  (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                              8 of 8