RAJESH UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                      179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4065 OF 2026

           Rajesh Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors.                   .. Petitioners
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                   .. Respondents
                                        ....................
            Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari a/w Ms. Sejal Nalawade & Mr. Pratik
              Molagi, Advocates for Petitioners
            Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for State
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : OCTOBER 8, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.

           Nakhwa, learned APP for State.


           2.       Present Petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the

           FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.


           3.       Parties have reconciled their dispute which has arisen out of a

           commercial transaction. Complainant is present in Court. He has filed

           his consent affidavit dated 24.07.2026 which is appended at page Nos.

           28-29 of Petition.      I have perused the Consent Affidavit. I have

           interacted with the parties who are present in Court. The request

           made by the parties for consent quashing deserves to be allowed.


           4.       Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

           inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to


                                                                                       1 of 6
                                                     179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


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.


5.       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,


1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                      2 of 6
                                                    179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement

because they involve societal implication.


6.    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”.


7.    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

                                                                     3 of 6
                                                   179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


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.


8.    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




                                                                    4 of 6
                                                    179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting

the society at large while considering consent quashing.


9.    Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

I am of the opinion that the Petitioners for his 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. 25,000/- 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.


10.    Petitioners through their Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today..




                                                                     5 of 6
                                                                                 179. CR. WP-4065-26.odt


                    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 quash the Criminal Case
                                         bearing vide C.R. No. 145 of 2026 lodged with Roha Police
                                         Station for the alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 319(2),
                                         336(3), 338, 340(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita."


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

           payment of costs on 22nd October, 2026.


           12.      Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show

           compliance 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 Petitioners.


           13.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.10.09
                      20:45:50
                      +0530




                                                                                                  6 of 6