RAMEEZ SHAUKAT THOBANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                 5. WP 4221-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4221 OF 2026

                      Rameez Shaukat Thobani & ors.                        .Petitioners

                                      Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                      .Respondents

                      Mr. Chinmay Patil a/w. Mr. Yash Mehta, Advocates, for the Petitioners
         Digitally
                      Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No.1 – State
         signed by
         ANAND        Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.09.19
         15:00:00
         +0530
                                             CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                             DATE      : 10.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard    Mr.    Patil,   learned   Counsel   for   the   Petitioners,

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

                      Kakade, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      This is a Petition for quashing of FIR. The parties have the

                      relationship of landlord and tenant. Complaint was filed for cheating

                      and forgery due to non-vacating of the landlord’s premises. Parties

                      have reconciled their dispute and have persuaded the Court to consider

                      the present Petition by consent quashing. Parties were embroiled in a

                      Civil Suit which is settled between them for the same subject property.

                      3.      I have perused the material placed on record and Consent

                      Affidavit dated 09.07.2026 of Respondent No. 2 is appended at page

                      Anand                                 1 of 7
                                                      5. WP 4221-2026.doc

No. 47. Respondent No. 2 is presently in the United States of America

and she has made an attempt to login but unsuccessfully. Her Advocate

is present. I have considered her consent Affidavit which is filed and

the averments made in the said Affidavit prima facie show that she has

given her absolute consent for quashing the present complaint. In view

of the settlement terms arrived at between the parties in Special Civil

Suit No. 632 of 2025 and the said Special Civil Suit No. 632 of 2025

before the Civil Court having been withdrawn by virtue of order dated

24.12.2025 and vacant possession of the subject premises having been

returned back to the landlord, I am inclined to accept the request made

for quashing the present Writ Petition by consent.

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


Anand                             2 of 7
                                                         5. WP 4221-2026.doc

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 Lal 1 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.


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


1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                                3 of 7
                                                          5. WP 4221-2026.doc

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 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

Anand                               4 of 7
                                                          5. WP 4221-2026.doc

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 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,
Anand                               5 of 7
                                                       5. WP 4221-2026.doc

Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal

Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at

Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards social welfare,

holistic upliftment, sustainable community development of destitutes,

marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them shelter,

dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women

empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill

training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development

and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community

groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and

complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with

intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of

this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under :-


Name of Bank:                       Bank of Maharashtra
Account Number :                    60434381304
IFSC Code :                         MAHB0002075
MICR Code:                          423014102



Registered Name : Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon.


Registration No. : MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352/Nashik


Office Address : S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No. 13, Near Panchaganga


Anand                             6 of 7
                                                               5. WP 4221-2026.doc

Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist.Nashik, Maharashtra,


Mobile No. : +91 8208525304.


The Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned

Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


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 clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

           “a)   That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set
                 aside FIR bearing No. 824/2025, registered with
                 Yerwada Police Station, Pune City, Pune dated
                 03.12.2025 for offence punishable under Section 318(4),
                 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) AND 3(5) of BNS, 2023
                 in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

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

payment of costs on 30.09.2026.


12.     Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of the Petitioners 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.


                                                      (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)


Anand                                  7 of 7