BHUPAT RAVJIBHAI LUKHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                      78.WP.3808.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO.3808 OF 2026

              Bhupat Ravjibhai Lukhi                           .. Petitioner
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                .. Respondents
                                          ....................
               Mr. Sameer D. Hatle, Advocate for Petitioner.
               Mr. Amit Munde, APP for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. Devendra Tilani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
               PSI – Chandu Patil, Kashimira Police Station.
                                           ...................

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
              P.C.:

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

              Munde, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Tilani, learned

              Advocate for Respondent No.2.


              2.       This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

              India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in

              connection with C.R.No.442 of 2017 registered with Kashimira Police

              Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal

              Code, 1860 read with Section 3(2)(C) and Section 3(2)(F) of the

              Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of

              Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.


              3.       Lis between the parties with regard to possession of flat

              premises which has already been handed over to the Complainant and

                                                                                  1 of 6
                                                       78.WP.3808.2026.doc


the dispute does not prevails. Both the parties are before the Court for

consent quashing and persuade the Court to allow the Petition.


4.     The Consent Affidavit of the original Complainant dated

15.07.2026 is taken on record. I have perused the same. The

Complainant is present online and she confirms and asserts that the

Affidavit has been given by her.


5.        Learned APP for the State informs the Court that C-summary

Report has also been filed in the present case.


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

and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from

case to case.


                                                                   2 of 6
                                                           78.WP.3808.2026.doc


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 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.


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”.


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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       3 of 6
                                                      78.WP.3808.2026.doc


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

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

                                                                  4 of 6
                                                          78.WP.3808.2026.doc


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.15,000/- towards the

Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a

Special School 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.         Petitioner       is

                                                                       5 of 6
                                                                                            78.WP.3808.2026.doc


               present in Court and through the learned Advocates 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 clause ‘ 1’ which read thus:-


                                   “1. The Petitioners by way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of
                                               the Constitution of India, prays for a Writ of Mandamus to quash
                                               and set aside the FIR No. 442 of 2017 registered with Kashmira
                                               Police Station.”

               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 he 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: 2026.09.03
                            18:04:29 +0530




                                                                                                         6 of 6