Bombay High Court
RAM WOLI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the FIR and charge‑sheet, subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs 10,000.
Summary
Ram Woli and another were charged under Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for simple hurt and intimidation arising from a public altercation. The parties later reconciled, and the complainant filed a consent term and a no‑objection affidavit seeking to have the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court examined the power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines on quashing FIRs. It held that, since the offences were not heinous and the dispute was settled, the FIR and charge‑sheet could be quashed, but costs of Rs 10,000 were to be paid by the petitioners to a charitable trust. The petition was therefore allowed, subject to the cost order, and the case was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of settlement and the complainant's consent under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether costs may be imposed on the petitioners in a consent‑quashing petition.
- Whether non‑heinous, non‑compoundable offences can be quashed despite the general rule against quashing such offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 118(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act, 1950
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 528
- Section 482
- settlement
- costs in criminal proceedings
- non‑heinous offence
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4079 OF 2026
Ram Woli And Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Anuj Pande, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Trupti Gaikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Pairavi Officer - Satyajit Virnodkar, Goregaon Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Pande, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms.
Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Gaikar,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 in the matter of Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with
C.R.No.399 of 2025 registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai
for offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Parties have reconciled and settled their dispute which
emanated from an altercation in a public place, which unfortunately,
led to the unfortunate incident of causing simple hurt and criminal
1 of 6
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
intimidation.
4. The Complainant has filed Consent Terms at Exhibit - C,
page No.45 dated 03.08.2026, and no-objection Affidavit dated
15.08.2026 appended at page No.48 wherein she has stated that she
does not wish to proceed further with the criminal proceedings and has
no objection if the same, alongwith the charge-sheet and all
consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside. I have perused
the same.
5. The Complainant is present online and she confirms having
given this said Affidavit.
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
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
2 of 6
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
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 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.
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
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”.
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 6
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
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
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
4 of 6
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
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.10,000/- towards the
Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra,
a Special School 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
5 of 6
79.WP.4079.2026.doc
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. All Petitioners are
present in Court and 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 ‘a and b’ which read thus:-
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
bearing C.R.No.399 of 2025 registered with Goregaon Police
Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 118(1),
352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
against the Petitioners.
(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
Charge-sheet dated 14/10/25 filed by Goregaon Police Station,
and all consequential proceedings pending before the Learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate / Sessions Court, arising out of the said
FIR;”
13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 16th September 2026.
14. Advocate in Petition for Petitioners shall remain present and
show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the returnable date for
compliance. If Advocates 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
Petition.
15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
6 of 6
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.03
18:06:01 +0530
Checking your session…