Bombay High Court
VIJAYENDRA GIRISH SHASTRIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000.
Summary
The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings (S.C.C. No.13465 of 2026) arising from FIR No.0523/2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Motor Vehicles Act. The parties had resolved the underlying motor‑accident dispute through a settlement dated 23 June 2026, with full payment of Rs.11 lakh made to the respondents. The respondents filed an affidavit stating they had no further grievance and requested the criminal case be dismissed. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and the precedent set in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, concluding that consent quashing is permissible where the dispute is private and the offences are not heinous. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner to deter misuse of criminal law.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties for offences under Sections 281, 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 184, 134, 119, 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita empowers the Court to dismiss the FIR in a consent‑quashing scenario.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing order.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 125(b), 281
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 119, 134, 177, 184
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528
- Section 482
- motor accident settlement
- costs in criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- criminal law abuse
- Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3886 OF 2026
Vijayendra Girish Shastri .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal a/w. Shirley Mody and Mr. Shreyas Deore,
Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Irvin D’Souza a/w. Mr. Omkar Wani and Mr. Sachin Prithviraj
Kharat, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Ms. Gayatri Amar Khandagale, Respondent No.3 is present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Dalal, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Gotad,
learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. D’Souza, learned
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Present Writ Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside of
the criminal proceedings in S.C.C. No.13465 of 2026 pending on the
file of the 13th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pune arising out of First Information Report (for short
‘FIR’) No. 0523 of 2025 registered with Sahakar Nagar Police Station
for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 281 and
125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and
1 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
Sections 184, 134, 119 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This
is a case of consent quashing between the parties.
3. Mr. Dalal, learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit
that the Petitioner is arrayed as accused in the criminal proceedings by
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.3 is the Power of Attorney
holder and sister of Respondent No.2 who instituted proceedings
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune seeking
compensation in respect of injuries allegedly sustained by him in an
accident.
3.1. He would submit that during the pendency of the said
proceedings, parties have amicably resolved all their disputes in terms
of terms of settlement dated 23.06.2026. He would submit and draw
Court’s attention to the terms of settlement appended at Exhibit 'B' and
the subsequent order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Pune disposing of the MACP Proceeding No.217 of
2026 as settled in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties.
3.2. He would submit that the said compromise records payment
of an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) out of
which Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) was agreed to be
handed over to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the date of passing of the
order before the Tribunal. He would submit that the balance amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) is now paid to Respondent
2 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
Nos.2 and 3 by Demand Draft No.3848 dated 03.08.2026 as agreed,
original of which is handed over to Respondent No.3 present in Court
and copy of which is placed on record and for immediate reference, the
same is scanned and reproduced below:-
4. In that view of the matter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
filed Affidavit dated 20.08.2026 which is appended at Exhibit 'B' of the
Petition. In the said Affidavit, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated
3 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
that pursuant to terms of settlement dated 23.06.2026, dispute
between the parties has been amicably settled and they do not have
any grievances or any further claim against the Petitioner and they do
not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings as also any other
proceedings against the Petitioner qua the accident in question. The
said statement is made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said Affidavit.
I have perused the same. Respondent No.3 is present in Court. I have
interacted with her through Advocate in the Court. The Demand Draft
of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) has been handed over to
Respondent No.3 and she informs the Court that they have no
grievances whatsoever and agree for quashing of the criminal
proceedings.
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
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
4 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.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.
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 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.
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
1 1992 AIR 604
5 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
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,
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.
6 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
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. 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 complaint 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.10,000/- (Ten Thousand
Rupees Only) to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai within a
period of one week from the date of uploading of this order. Petitioner
is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the
aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
7 of 8
8.WP.3886.2026.doc
11. 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] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and read with
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings being
S.C.C. No. 13465 of 2026 pending on the file of the 13 th
Joint Civil Judge J.D. and JMFC Pune arising out of F.I.R.
bearing No. 0523 of 2025 registered with Sahakarnagar
Police Station for offences punishable under the provisions
of Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 184, 134, 119 and 177 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the interest of justice.”
12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 10th September 2026.
13. Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show
compliance on behalf of Petitioner 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 Petitioner/parties in Petition.
14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01
14:49:19 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…