Bombay High Court
DEEPAK ANANDRAO MORE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR and the criminal proceeding under Section 304‑A read with Section 34 IPC.
Summary
The petitioners were involved in a factory accident for which they paid statutory compensation and later executed a memorandum of understanding with the victim's family regarding further compensation. The victim’s first informant consented to the settlement, and the parties sought to quash the FIR (CR No. 0242/2021) and a criminal proceeding (S.C.C. No. 648 of 2021) filed under Section 304‑A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court examined its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS, referring to the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. It held that, given the settlement and absence of any prima facie case, the proceedings were an abuse of process and could be dismissed. Consequently, the Court quashed both the FIR and the pending criminal case, ordering no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and the criminal proceeding under Section 304‑A IPC can be quashed on the ground of settlement and payment of compensation.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CRPC (and Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process in a non‑compoundable offence.
- Whether the settlement extinguishes criminal liability for an offence punishable under Section 304‑A read with Section 34 IPC.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-A, 34
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Inherent Powers
- Section 482 CRPC
- Quashment of FIR
- Compensation Settlement
- 304-A IPC
- Abuse of Process
Judgment
61.WP.4243.2021.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4243 OF 2021
Deepak Anandrao More and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chetan Arvind Alai a/w. Mr. Varun Rajiv Joshi, Advocates
through video conferencing for Petitioners.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
API – Mr. Ganpat Dhaygude, Chakan South Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Alai, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. The parties have reconciled their disputes and differences
and have executed an MOU with regard to the payment of
compensation. The incident in question was an accident that occurred
in the factory of the Petitioners and all statutory compensation has
been duly paid by them.
3. The consent affidavit of the First Informant dated
11.04.2022 is placed at Page No.127 of the Petition. I have perused the
same. Today, she is present through video conferencing and has
accepted the said settlement between the parties.
1 of 3
61.WP.4243.2021.doc
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 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 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
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 3
61.WP.4243.2021.doc
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 that view of the matter, there can be no impediment in
allowing the present Writ Petition. Writ Petition stands allowed in
terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which read thus:-
“a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing
C.R. No.0242/2021 which is registered at the instance of
Chakan Police Station, on behest of Respondent no.2,
against the Petitioners for the offence punishable under
section 304-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on
such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper.
b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the criminal
proceeding being S.C.C. No. 648 of 2021 pending before
the Ld. J.M.F.C. Rajgurunagar Khed, Pune, against the
Petitioners for the offence punishable under section 304-A
read with 34 of IPC.”
7. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.
8. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.19
13:16:16 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…