SAGAR D SAWANT AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                             16.WP.3838.2018.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3838 OF 2018

       Sagar D. Sawant and Anr.                         .. Petitioners
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                    .. Respondents
                                   ....................
        Mr. Vikram Parmar, Advocate i/by Sudatta Patil for Petitioners.
        Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Mr. Saakshat Relekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
        Ms. Kalpana Sapkale, Respondent No.2 is present.
                                   ......…...........

                                   CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                   DATE        : AUGUST 27, 2026.

       P.C.:
       1.       Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms.

       Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Relekar,

       learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


       2.       Present Petition is filed by Petitioners under Section 482 of

       the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’) read with Article

       226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the First Information

       Report (FIR) dated 02.02.2018 lodged at C.R. No.37 of 2018 under

       Sections 454, 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

       short ‘IPC’) registered with Khadakpada Police Station against

       Petitioners. Respondent No.2 is a suspended police constable. She is

       the Complainant. There was a transaction between Petitioners and

       Respondent No.1 with regard to Flat No.505, 5 th Floor, Mangeshi City

                                                                         1 of 8
                                                       16.WP.3838.2018.doc


II, B-1 Wing, Kalyan (West) for leave and license.


3.        It is the grievance of the Petitioners that the Complainant

neither entered into a registered agreement nor made any payment

towards rent or licence fees to the Petitioners. The wife of Petitioner

No.1 thereafter lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police,

Kalyan as Respondent No.2 was employed as a police constable.

However, on 02.02.2018, Petitioners were informed that Respondent

No.2 had lodged a criminal complaint at Amalner and had been

transferred to Kalyan Police Station.


4.        The lis between the parties,         inter alia, pertain to

Complainant non paying rent for 18 months and forcibly occupying the

flat of the Petitioners. However, Complainant filed a complaint against

the Petitioners because it was initially refused to be registered by the

concerned Police Station. Petitioners have also placed on record

material to show that the Complainant has in the past committed

similar offences and was released on bail by the Court. Allegations of

Complainant against the Petitioners is that the Petitioners have stolen

the jewellery of her flat.


5.        At present, both the parties are before me. The Complainant

is very old and rather hospitalised as informed by her son who is

present in Court. Hospital papers are also placed before me and I have

perused the same.


                                                                   2 of 8
                                                       16.WP.3838.2018.doc


6.        Mr.   Relekar, learned Advocate for Complainant would

submit that Complainant has filed Affidavit of Consent dated

31.07.2026 stating that the parties have reconciled their dispute and

the Complainant has received certain amount from the Petitioners and

she voluntarily withdraws all allegations and accusations against the

Petitioners. A demand draft of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.591276 dated

30.07.2026 in the name of the son of the Complainant is given to Mr.

Relekar who has in turn given it to the son of the Complainant who is

present in Court. Complainant has made the request that considering

her medical condition and it is her express wish that the said demand

draft towards settlement amount be drawn in the name of her son and

given to him.


7.        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

                                                                   3 of 8
                                                                 16.WP.3838.2018.doc


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.


8.           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.


9.           After perusing the Affidavit of Consent dated 31.07.2026 and

the fact that the parties have reconciled their differences, there can be

no impediment in allowing the present Writ Petition, Writ Petition is

allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-


             “a.    This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside
                    FIR dated 02.02.18 lodged at C.R. no. 37/18 under
                    sections 454, 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
                    registered with Khadakpada Police Station.”




1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                               4 of 8
                                                         16.WP.3838.2018.doc


10.       In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am

inclined to impose costs for the simple reason that the Complainant

has settled the matter with the Petitioners by accepting an amount of

Rs.50,000/- in the name of her son. The record shows that

Complainant is a suspended police constable having antecedents of

similar nature. The case of the Complainant, even otherwise, does not

inspire any confidence whatsoever in the mind of the Court. It appears

clearly that Petitioners have bought peace by putting an end to the

complaint by agreeing to the Complainant's demand of payment of

Rs.50,000/- to her and putting an end to the criminal proceedings.


11.       The facts of the case are such that on the face of record, it is

seen that Complainant has behaved and committed excesses against

the Petitioners. Complainant not only occupied the Petitioners' flat, but

did not pay rent for more than 18 months and thereafter forcibly

occupied the flat of the Petitioners and misused her position as a

constable to file a false complaint against the Petitioners. There is

prima facie material placed on record to show that the Complainant

has in the past committed similar offences also and was released on

bail.


12.       In view of these serious facts, even though the parties have

reconciled their dispute and the Petitioners have agreed to pay to the

Complainant Rs.50,000/- in the name of her son, since the



                                                                     5 of 8
                                                      16.WP.3838.2018.doc


Complainant does not have a bank account, I am inclined to levy costs

on the Complainant in the present case for her omissions and actions.

The Complainant is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Kirtikar

Law Library, High Court, Bombay. I am impelled to pass this order

because the Complainant and/or her son cannot get a windfall as a

reward for giving their consent for putting an end to the criminal

proceedings. If the Complainant's consent is accepted simplicitor in

such facts, it will send a wrong precedent.


13.       Petitioners are benevolent and have agreed to the demand of

the Complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to her son and in lieu thereof, the

Complainant has given her consent to quash the criminal proceedings.

In my opinion, the Complainant does not deserve the amount of

Rs.50,000/- also. But since Petitioners have agreed to pay Rs.50,000/-

and have come before the Court with a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-

and have persuaded the Court through their Advocate to put an end to

the matter by taking on record the consent of Respondent No.2, the

present Writ Petition is determined.


14.       Nevertheless, I direct payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the

Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai by the son of the

Complainant who will be receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- in his

Bank Account. The said costs shall be paid by the son of the

Complainant through Complainant within a period of one week from



                                                                  6 of 8
                                                           16.WP.3838.2018.doc


the date of receipt of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- in the son's bank

account.


15.        I make it clear that if the said costs are not paid, I direct that

the son of the Complainant shall not use the balance amount of

Rs.40,000/- and withdraw the same unless he pays the costs amount of

Rs.10,000/- as directed hereinabove. If the son of the Complainant

does not follow and obey this order, I shall be constrained to issue

appropriate process and proceedings against the son of the

Complainant, which is made clear.


16.        The Advocate for the Complainant, Mr. Relekar is directed to

ensure that son of the Complainant, to whom he shall hand over the

demand draft of Rs.50,000/- is made aware about this order and he

pays the costs to the Kirtikar Law Library as directed hereinabove.


17.        Needless to state that the present matter shall be kept for

compliance on 10th September 2026 to place the receipt of payment of

costs before the Court, failing which the Court will pass appropriate

orders.


18.        Advocate for Complainant shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of Complainant 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 Complainant/parties in the Petition.

                                                                       7 of 8
                                                                                        16.WP.3838.2018.doc


                                    19.   In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.



                                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

         Ajay
              Digitally signed by
AJAY       AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01
              14:50:59 +0530




                                                                                                    8 of 8