SNEHAL NITIN SHINDE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                             12.WP.4109.2026.doc

            Anand

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4109 OF 2026

                      Snehal Nitin Shinde & anr.                        .. Petitioners
                           Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                   .. Respondents

                                               ....................
                       Ms. Prajakta N. Deshmukh a/w. Ms. Jayashree Tamboli, Advocates
                        for Petitioners.
                       Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State
                                                  ......…...........
         Digitally
         signed by
         ANAND
         SUDHAKAR
                                                 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
ANAND
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.09.03                              DATE         : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026.
         20:16:38
         +0530


                      P.C.:

                      1.       Heard Ms. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners

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


                      2.       The Petition seeks consent quashing. It emanates from an

                      FIR lodged for cheating by the Respondent No. 2 qua an Agreement for

                      Sale under which substantial amounts were paid to the tune of

                      Rs.1.5/- Crores in installments but since the Agreement was not

                      honoured, the complaint came to be filed. The parties have reconciled

                      their disputes and are persuading the Court to put an end to the

                      Criminal proceeding. Appended at Exh. B page 32 in the Affidavit-

                      Cum-Consent dated 04.08.2026 of Respondent No. 2 (First Informant)

                      which prima facie lists the return of the amounts received by the said

                      Respondent No. 2. In paragraphs 19 & 20 of the said Affidavit of

                                                                                         1 of 6
                                                               12.WP.4109.2026.doc


Respondent No. 2 has stated as under :-

      “19. I therefore state, declare and confirm that I have no objection
      whatsoever if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to quash and set aside C.
      R. No. 0123 of 2026 registered with Sanpada Police Station for the
      offences punishable under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the
      Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in its entirety and against all the
      accused persons named therein, namely Mr. Nitin Sudhir Shinde,
      Mrs. Snehal Nitin Shinde and Mrs. Sujata Sudhir Shinde, together
      with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

      20. I say that the aforesaid consent and no-objection is being given
      by me voluntarily, consciously and after fully understanding the
      nature and consequences of the settlement as well as the effect of
      quashing the criminal proceedings. There is no force, fraud,
      coercion, pressure, threat, inducement or undue influence upon me
      from the Applicants/Accused or from any other person for giving the
      present consent.”

3.        In view of the above, as the parties having reconciled their

disputes, I am inclined to consider the request made by the parties for

consent quashing and quash the Criminal proceedings.


4.        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


                                                                              2 of 6
                                                           12.WP.4109.2026.doc


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,

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
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       3 of 6
                                                      12.WP.4109.2026.doc


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 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



                                                                  4 of 6
                                                          12.WP.4109.2026.doc


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.


9.        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.25,000/- 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

                                                                      5 of 6
                                                             12.WP.4109.2026.doc


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. All Petitioners are

present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the

aforesaid costs amount collectively to the above charity as directed

within a period of two weeks.

10.       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)     quash and set aside C. R. No. 0123 of 2026 registered with
          Sanpada Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable
          under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
          in its entirety and qua all the accused persons named therein, namely
          Accused No.1 Mr. Nitin Sudhir Shinde, Accused No.2 Mrs. Snehal Nitin
          Shinde and Accused No.3 Mrs. Sujata Sudhir Shinde, together with all
          proceedings arising therefrom in view of the voluntary and compressive
          settlement arrived at between the parties.’
11.       List the Writ Petition for compliance of this order on 23rd

September 2026.

12.       Advocates for Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of 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 Petitions.

13.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

                                              [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]



                                                                          6 of 6