Bombay High Court
M/S WALIA AGNI METAL PVT. LTD. THROUGH NEERAJ BALDEV WALIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR and charge sheet are quashed, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.25,000 to a charitable trust.
Summary
The petition arose from FIR No.1025 of 2019 filed for cheating and breach of trust concerning a land transaction. The parties later settled the dispute through a deed of compromise in a commercial suit, and the respondent filed an affidavit confirming the amicable resolution. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and the pending charge sheet under Section 482 of the CRPC and Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of consent quashing. The Court examined the power to quash under these provisions, referring to the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and considered whether costs should be imposed for the misuse of criminal proceedings. It held that the petition should be allowed, quashing the FIR and charge sheet, but directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000 to a charitable trust as costs. The order was set to be complied with by a specified date.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for cheating and breach of trust can be quashed by consent after the parties have settled the civil dispute.
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS, in conjunction with Section 482 of the CRPC, empowers the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings in such circumstances.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing petition and, if so, on what basis.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CRPC
- Section 528 BNSS
- settlement of civil dispute
- costs in criminal proceedings
- cheating
- breach of trust
- high court inherent powers
Judgment
71-WP-4155-25.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4155 OF 2025
M/S Walia Agni Metal Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Rajendra Patil, PI, Anti Extortion Crime Branch, Pimpri
Chinchwad.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Hinduja, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Newton,
learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the
CRPC/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. FIR No.1025 of 2019 dated 06.10.2019 is filed for cheating and
breach of trust regarding transaction pertaining to a plot of land
situated in MIDC, Pune and a Memorandum of Understanding
executed thereunder leading to exchange of monies.
1 of 6
71-WP-4155-25.doc
4. The parties have reconciled their dispute by filing the deed of
compromise dated 20.12.2022 in Commercial Suit No.12 of 2021
before the learned Trial Court and said Commercial Suit has been
disposed of. Consequently, Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated
03.11.2025, a copy of which is appended at page No.66 onwards.
5. I have perused the same. The dispute has been resolved amicably.
Parties are present before the Court. They have confirmed resolution of
the dispute. The advocates have identified the respective parties.
Parties are therefore before the Court for consent quashing.
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
and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from
2 of 6
71-WP-4155-25.doc
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
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
71-WP-4155-25.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
71-WP-4155-25.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 Petitioner for his actions resulting in
the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs.
Hence, Petitioner is 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, 3rd Panjarapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai – 400
5 of 6
71-WP-4155-25.doc
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 weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
Petitioner is present in Court and through his 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’ which read thus:-
“ a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ / order of direction / in the like nature under
Article 226 of Constitution of India R/w Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023,
thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned F.I.R. No. 1025 of
2019, registered with Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Station, Pimpri for the
offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 506 & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code filed to said crime be quashed and set aside as well as
quash and set aside the RCC (Charge St) no.1248/2026 pending before
Hon’ble JMFC, At Pimpri”
13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.
14. Advocate in Petition for Petitioner shall remain present and
show compliance on behalf of Petitioner 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 Petitioner to Petition.
15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
AJAY
TRAMBAK
by AJAY
TRAMBAK
UGALMUGALE
6 of 6
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
10:53:51 +0530
Checking your session…