DILIP RAVJI SHAH AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                80.WP.4333.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4333 OF 2026

       Dilip Ravji Shah and Anr.                           .. Petitioners
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                       .. Respondents

                                 ....................
        Ms. Sharada Pandey, Advocate for Petitioners.
        Mr. Amit A. Parkar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        Mr. Prashant A. Nakati, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                     ......…...........

                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE         : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Ms. Pandey, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.

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

       learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


       2.        This Writ Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya

       Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in connection with

       FIR No.191 of 2023 registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai

       for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506(ii) read with

       34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


       3.        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



                                                                            1 of 7
                                                       80.WP.4333.2026.doc


herein for the sake of brevity.


4.        Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present before me.

Parties have reconciled their dispute and lis with the intervention of

their family and friends and have persuaded the Court to quash the

criminal proceedings. Petitioners are present in Court. Respondent

No.2 – original Complainant is present in Court. I have interacted with

them. Affidavit-cum-consent of Respondent No. 2 dated 01.09.2026 is

taken on record wherein he has stated that he has no objection if the

criminal case and the charge sheet and / or all prosecution proceedings

are quashed. He has also referred to an amicable settlement arrived at

between the parties without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

Considering the request made by the Petitioners in the present Petition,

I am inclined to allow the present Writ Petition.


5.        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



                                                                   2 of 7
                                                           80.WP.4333.2026.doc


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.

6.           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.


7.           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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       3 of 7
                                                      80.WP.4333.2026.doc


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”.


8.       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.

                                                                  4 of 7
                                                          80.WP.4333.2026.doc


9.        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.


10.       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 complaint 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/- (Rs. Twenty

Five Thousand only) to a charity namely 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)

                                                                      5 of 7
                                                            80.WP.4333.2026.doc


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 – 400 004 [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. All Petitioners are present in Court and

through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs

amount to the charity.


11.       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 pass appropriate orders and Quash
                and set aside Criminal Case No. 2710/PW/2025, FIR No.
                191/2023 dated 15.03.2023 registered with D. N. Nagar Police
                Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 502(2)
                read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the
                chargesheet filed on 06.08.2025, and all consequential
                proceedings arising therefrom, as against the Petitioners Mrs.
                Rekha Dilip Shah and Mr. Dilip Ravji Shah.”


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

payment of costs on 15th September 2026.


13.       Advocate 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,

                                                                         6 of 7
                                                                      80.WP.4333.2026.doc


       which shall be noted by the Petitioners/parties in the Petition.


       14.                Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                   Digitally
                   signed by AJAY
                   TRAMBAK
        AJAY       UGALMUGALE
Ajay    TRAMBAK
        UGALMUGALE Date:
                   2026.09.01
                   20:16:53
                   +0530




                                                                                  7 of 7