VIKAS RANCHOD SHUKLA AND ORSversusMANISHA EKNATH KAVALE AND ORS

                                                                70-WP-3918-25.doc

rsk
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          WRIT PETITION NO.3918 OF 2025

      Vikas Ranchod Shukla And Ors.             .. Petitioners
                Versus
      Manisha Eknath Kavale And Ors.            .. Respondents
                      WRIT PETITION NO.4061 OF 2023

      Rahul Dinkar Patil & Ors.                        .. Petitioners
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                  ....................
       Mr. Satyajeet Joshi a/w. Mr. Chinmay Joshi, Advocates for
        Petitioners in WP No.3918 of 2025 and for Respondent No.2 in WP
        No.4061 of 2023.
       Mr. Gavrav Parkar a/w. Mr. Shantanu Kadam, Mr. Tarang Jain,
        Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.4061 of 2023.
       Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                      ...................
                                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                     DATE       : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.3918

      of 2025 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No.4061 of 2023; Mr.

      Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Parkar,

      learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.4061 of 2023.


      2.      These Petitions are filed under Section 482/528 of the

      CRPC/BNSS by parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the

      able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and

      learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find

      it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of

      brevity.


                                                                           1 of 7
                                                            70-WP-3918-25.doc


3.   In Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025, Petitioner No.1 is a practicing

Advocate, Petitioner No.2 is a tax consultant and Petitioner No.3 is a

younger brother of Petitioner No.2 and in service. Complainant is a

tribal lady who has lodged atrocities complaint against them vide

CR.No.440 of 2022. A cross complaint is lodged by Petitioner No.1

against   Rahul    Dinkar     Patil,   Bipin   Dinkar   Patil   and     Rohit

Rameshchandra Pandey for assault and robbery bearing CR. No.441 of

2022. A cause of action in both the complaints is the same. It is argued

that both parties belonged to rival panels for the election of Gram-

panchayat and due to the election results filed the criminal complaints

qua each other out of grudge and rivalry.

4.   These are two cross Petitions. Two consent affidavits have been

filed by the parties for reconciling their disputes. They have no further

grievance with each other. Both the affidavits are taken on record. I

have perused the same. Parties are present before the Court and I have

interacted with them.

5.   Considering the submissions made by both learned Advocates at

Bar and the fact that the parties have filed cross FIRs and persuaded

the Court to put an end to the cross complaints as they affect their

future prospects, I am inclined to allow the Petitions. Both Petitions are

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) respectively.

6.   Affidavits   dated     07.08.2025    of   the   Respondent       No.1   -

Complainant in Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025 and Respondent No.2 -

                                                                        2 of 7
                                                         70-WP-3918-25.doc


Complainant in Writ Petition No.4061 of 2023 are filed before me

today. I have perused it and taken the same on record. The contents of

the said Affidavit prima facie show that the entire dispute and

settlement/ issue now stands resolved and hence parties now want to

put an end to the criminal proceedings.

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

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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                    3 of 7
                                                             70-WP-3918-25.doc


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.

9.        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”.

10.       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

                                                                        4 of 7
                                                        70-WP-3918-25.doc


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.

11.      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

                                                                   5 of 7
                                                           70-WP-3918-25.doc


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.

12.       Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners for their actions resulting

in the Complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs.

Hence, all three Petitioners in WP No.3918 of 2025 and one Petitioner

in WP No.4061 of 2023 are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- each

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, 3 rd 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. All Petitioners are present in

                                                                      6 of 7
                                                                                             70-WP-3918-25.doc


                      Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

                      costs amount to the charity.

                      13.              In view of the above matter, the both Petitions deserves to be

                      allowed subject to payment of costs as directed hereinabove. It is so

                      allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-

                                       In Criminal Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025
                                       “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for record and proceeding
                                       from the Special Sessions Judge / D.J.-1 Palghar in respect of Special
                                       Sessions Case No.60 of 2022 arising out of C.R. No.440 of 2022, and
                                       after going through the legality and propriety of the same and after
                                       considering the fact that the said case is settled out of court between
                                       the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, be pleased to quash the Special
                                       Case No.60 of 2022."
                                       In Criminal Writ Petition No.4061 of 2023
                                       "(a) That this Hon'ble Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article
                                       226 of the Constitution of India may issue a writ of certiorari or any
                                       other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari
                                       thereby quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned
                                       Session Court at Palghar being RCC no. 185 of 2023 arising out of CR
                                       no.441 of 2022 of Boisar Police station u/s 395, 308, 341, 323, 324,
                                       504, 506, 427, of IPC r/w 37(1)(3) & 135 of the Maharashtra Police
                                       act in the interest of justice."

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

                      payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.

                      15.              Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain

                      present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the

                      returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 Petitioners/parties

                      to both Petitions.

                      16.              Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

rsk                                                                       [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]


                                                                                                         7 of 7
                    Digitally signed
                    by AJAY
      AJAY       TRAMBAK
      TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
                    10:52:07 +0530