VENUGOPAL @ KIRAN PRABHURAM JOSHIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                         WP.3993.2026.doc

Ajay

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3993 OF 2026

       Mr. Venugopal @ Kiran Prabhuram Joshi                     .. Petitioner
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                             .. Respondents

                                   ....................
        Mr. A.R. Gole, Advocate for Petitioners.
        Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Mr. Dhanashree Bhate, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                       ......…...........

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

       P.C.:

       1.         Heard Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Talhar

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

       Advocate for Respondent No.2.


       2.         This Petition is 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.


       3.         Briefly   stated,   on   11.05.2024       at   about    11:45    a.m.

       Respondent No.2 - Complainant allegedly received a call from one of



                                                                                   1 of 7
                                                        WP.3993.2026.doc


his employees informing him that Petitioner allegedly forceably

entered into his office and broke a glass partition, hurled abuses and

threats to his employees, caused damage to the articles in the office

and took away a computer from the office. Applicant is one of the 5

partners of the firm of the Complainant. Complainant firm is engaged

in construction business. Statements of employees have been recorded

which confirm the above.     In these circumstances, Respondent No.2 -

Complainant filed FIR No.200 of 2024 with Achole Police Station,

Nalasoppara East.


4.       Affidavit   dated    27.07.2026   of   Respondent    No.2     -

Complainant is 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 between the partners now

stands resolved and hence parties have approached this Court to put

an end to the criminal proceedings launched by one of the partners.


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



                                                                  2 of 7
                                                                WP.3993.2026.doc


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.


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     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.


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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                          3 of 7
                                                         WP.3993.2026.doc


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”.


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

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                            WP.3993.2026.doc


way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to

humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


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 complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, I am of the opinion in such

circumstances, in view of the relationship of both parties and whatever

may be their dispute, since the criminal law has been set into motion,



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                                 WP.3993.2026.doc


both parties being otherwise equally responsible should pay costs.

Hence, I direct the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 both should pay

costs of Rs.25,000/- each to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund bearing

Account No.465010100008693 and IFSC Code No.UTIB0000465 in

Axis Bank Limited.       Petitioner is present in Court and through his

learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the

charity.


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 the record and proceeding of FIR No.I-200 of 2024
                 dated 11/05/2024 registered with Achole Police Station,
                 Chargesheet No.154/2024 and Reg.Criminal Case
                 No.1800 of 2024 pending before the Ld. 2nd Jt. Civil Judge
                 JD/JMFC, Vasai, be called for and after examining the
                 legality, validity and propriety thereof FIR No.I-200 of
                 2024 dated 11/05/2024 registered with Achole Police
                 Station, Chargesheet No.154/2024 and Reg. Criminal
                 Case No.1800 of 2024 pending before the Ld.2 nd Jt. Civil
                 Judge JD/JMFC, Vasai, be quashed quashed and set
                 aside.”



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

payment of costs on 22nd September 2026.


13.        Advocates for Petitioner and Complainant shall remain

present and show compliance on behalf of them 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


                                                                              6 of 7
                                                                                        WP.3993.2026.doc


                              this order, which shall be noted by the Petitioner/parties to the

                              Petition.


                              14.         Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

        Ajay
           Digitally signed
           by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE
           Date: 2026.09.08
           15:08:42 +0530




                                                                                                  7 of 7