MANISH RAMPRAKASH TIKAWADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                      85. CRI WP-4110-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2026

           Manish Ramprakash Tikawade                               .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                          .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Ms. Sakshi Mane, Advocate for Petitioner
            Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
            Mr. Jinesh Jitendra Koli, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
            Mr. Paresh Gargade, PSI, Pairavi Officer, Versova Police Station
                                           ...................
                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                         DATE           : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Ms. Mane, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Karmakar,

           learned APP for State and Mr. Koli, learned Advocate for Respondent

           No. 2


           2.       Present Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

           Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash and set aside the

           FIR bearing C.R. No. No. 216 of 2017 registered with Versova Police

           Station, Mumbai against the Petitioner and currently pending on the

           file of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate's 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in

           case No. 2769/2017.


           3.       Considering that both the parties before the Court were adults

           at the time of incident, they have persuade the Court to reconcile their



                                                                                      1 of 3
                                                     85. CRI WP-4110-26.odt


disputes with the intervention of their well-wishers and family

members and the Complainant having filed a consent affidavit dated

13.07.2026 and persuaded the court to quash the criminal

proceedings, I am inclined to allow the present Petition.


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

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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                     2 of 3
                                                                                   85. CRI WP-4110-26.odt


            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 view of the above, the present Petition is allowed in terms of

            prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

                                  “a)    That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its power
                                         under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
                                         2023 and Article 226 of Constitution of India, and may be
                                         pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. No. 216
                                         of 2017 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai against
                                         the Petitioner and currently pending on the file of Ld.
                                         Metropolitan Magistrate's 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in case
                                         No. 2769/2017 on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble
                                         Court may deed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case."

            7.          Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.09.19
                      14:50:26
                      +0530




                                                                                                   3 of 3