VIJAY SUNIL AGARWAL S/O MR SUNIL PYARELAL AGARWALAND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                        91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4374 OF 2026

           Vijay Sunil Agarwal & Ors.                                 .. Petitioners
                       Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                .. Respondents
                                     ....................
            Mr. Prashant Trivedi a/w Mr. Amankumar Shahi & Mr. Manish
             Kumawat i/by Mr. Amankumar Shahi, Advocates for Petitioners
            Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
            Mr. Rehan H. Ghojaria i/by Diamondwala & Co., Advocates for
             Respondent No. 2
            PI Shiranand B. Kambhoj, EOW, Mumbai
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : OCTOBER 1, 2026
           P. C.:

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

           Newton, learned APP for State and Mr. Ghojaria, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the

           FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.


           3.       Parties are before the Court for consent quashing. By virtue of

           the settlement agreement dated 01.08.2026, they have reconciled

           their dispute with regard to the lis between them which is prima facie

           seen to be private and commercial in nature. The directors of both

           Private Limited Companies are present before me.



                                                                                        1 of 7
                                                    91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


4.    Consent affidavit dated 03.09.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2 -

Complainant is appended at page Nos.        70-78 of Petition. I have

perused the same.       Complainant is present before the Court.

Petitioners are also present before the Court. Since parties are / were

having a well-established business and commercial relationship

between them, in that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the

request made by the parties and after interacting with them, I am of

the opinion that the present Petition should be allowed.


5.    Ms. Newton, learned APP would persuade the Court to record

her objection in view of EOW having stepped in. Prima facie, it is seen

that the dispute that arose was because of a purely commercial

transaction between the parties and the element of cheating and

conspiracy has found its way in view of the relationship between the

parties. Since the parties have reconciled and a comprehensive

settlement proposal has been arrived at between the parties which is

prima facie evident from the deed of settlement placed on record, I am

inclined to accept the case of the Petitioners for consent quashing and

reject the submissions made by the learned APP.


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

                                                                    2 of 7
                                                       91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


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.


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 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.


1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       3 of 7
                                                     91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


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”.


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


                                                                     4 of 7
                                                     91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


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 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.




                                                                     5 of 7
                                                        91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


11.   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 are 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 – 400 004 [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.


12.   Petitioners through their Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today.


13.   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) & (c) which read thus:-

          “a). This Hon'ble Court may issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
               appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof,
               quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. No. 954 of 2025 dated

                                                                        6 of 7
                                                                                  91. CRI WP-4374-26.odt


                                        09.10.2025, registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, for
                                        offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 338,
                                        340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
                                        subsequently registered as E.O.W. F.I.R. No. 97 of 2025, and all
                                        proceedings, investigations, and actions arising therefrom
                             c.         This Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct the concerned
                                        Investigating Agency and/or the concerned Banks to forthwith
                                        unfreeze/de-freeze the bank accounts set out in Paragraph 13
                                        hereinabove and permit the respective account holders to operate
                                        the said accounts in the ordinary course;

           14.        All bank accounts of the Petitioners in whichever bank they

           have been attached and frozen are directed to be immediately released

           from attachment and freeze and the money available in those accounts

           shall be made available to the Petitioners for their personal use."


           15.      List the Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment

           of costs on 15th October, 2026.


           16.      Learned Advocate for Petitioners shall remain present and show

           compliance on the returnable date for compliance failing which this

           Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order.


           17.      Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                         [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.10.01
                     19:52:25 +0530




                                                                                                  7 of 7