ANIL ATMARAM BHAMBORE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                             54-WP-4025-22.doc

rsk

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          WRIT PETITION NO.4025 OF 2022

      Anil Atmaram Bhambore And Anr                                   .. Petitioners
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                ....................
       Mr. Shashikant Chaudhari a/w Mr. Gyanprakash Pal, Ms. Snehal S.
        Chaudhari, Ms. Ananya Thakoor, Mr. Pranav Thakare i/b
        Maharashtra Law Associates, Advocates for Petitioners.
       Ms. Rajeshree Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
       Ms. Shailya Rakesh Pal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
       Anil Atmaram Bhambore, Petitioner No.1 present in Court.
                                         ...................

                                      CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                      DATE            : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Mr. Chaudhari, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms.

      Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Pal, learned

      Advocate for Respondent No.3.


      2.      This Petition is filed under Section 528 of the 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.      Dispute   between    the       parties       pertains     to   execution     of

      Memorandum of Understanding between Respondent No.3 and


                                                                                        1 of 7
                                                         54-WP-4025-22.doc


Developer with respect to possession of flats. Developer failed to

handover possession of flats to Respondent No.3 therefore Respondent

No.3 filed FIR No.196 of 2018 registered with Vakola Police Station for

trespass and mischief.


4.   Since the gist between the parties has emanated from a purely

civil dispute on the basis of the memorandum of understanding

between the parties, the present Petition for quashing by consent is

taken up for determination.


5.   By consent, the affidavit of the Complainant who is arraigned as

Respondent No.3 - Sambhaji Bapurao Kale dated 03.08.2026 is filed

before me. I have perused the same. Respondent No.2 is duly

represented by an Advocate. Respondent No.3 is 78 years old and

bedridden. I have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by learned

Advocate.


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


                                                                    2 of 7
                                                                54-WP-4025-22.doc


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.


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     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.


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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                           3 of 7
                                                        54-WP-4025-22.doc


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

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

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                           54-WP-4025-22.doc


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

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 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, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to 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



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                                       54-WP-4025-22.doc


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, 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

within a period of two week from the uploading of this order. All

Petitioners through their 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 clauses ‘ b’ which read thus:-

          “(b) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to call records and proceedings
          arises from the FIR No. 196/2018 registered with Vakola Police station and
          issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of
          same which a direction to quash the FIR bearing No. 196 of 2018 U/s448 &
          427 & 34 of I.P.C. dated 26-05-2018by the Vakola Police Station, at
          Santacruz (East), Mumbai against the Petitioner along with the criminal
          proceedings arisen there from being Criminal Case No 20/PS/2019 pending
          before 71th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra at Mumbai.”



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

payment of costs on 24th September 2026.


14.       Advocates in Petition for Petitioners shall remain present and

show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the returnable date for


                                                                                    6 of 7
                                                                                    54-WP-4025-22.doc


                   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 in Petition.


                   15.                 Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



rsk                                                                  [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]




                    Digitally signed
                    by AJAY
      AJAY       TRAMBAK
      TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
                    10:17:14 +0530




                                                                                               7 of 7