OLYMPIC DECOR LLP, AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                        40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4403 OF 2026

           Olympic Decor LLP & Ors.                                   .. Petitioners
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Ms. Angeline Rodrigues, Advocate for Petitioners
            Mr. Sukanta B. Karmakar, APP for State
            Mr. Pradip J. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
            Ms. Prerna Bankar, PSI, MIDC Police Station, Mumbai
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Ms. Rodrigues, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Karmakar,

           learned APP for State and Mr. Jaiswal, 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 have reconciled their dispute and have prayed for

           quashing by consent. Parties are in relationship rather business

           relationship but due to certain business conflicts, the complaint came

           to be filed for publishing and airing the memes, reels and videos on

           social media platforms by the Petitioners.




                                                                                        1 of 7
                                                    40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


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

appended at page No. 43 onwards of the Petition, inter alia, stating

that settlement has arrived voluntarily between the parties without

any coercion, undue influence or pressure and Complainant has no

objection for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.


5.    Parties are present before the Court. They have been identified

by their respective Advocates. I have interacted with them. They

persuade the Court to quash the criminal proceedings.


6.    In view of the request made by the parties so that ignominy of

the present criminal proceedings should not affect their further

business prospects, I am inclined to consider the request made and

allow the present Petition by consent quashing.


7.    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
                                                        40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


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.


8.       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.


9.       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

                                                                        3 of 7
                                                     40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


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”.


10.   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


                                                                     4 of 7
                                                     40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous

pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


11.   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.


12.   Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

I am of the opinion that Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for their

actions resulting in invocation of criminal proceedings and now both

the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners and

Respondent No. 2 are directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- each

towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical

                                                                     5 of 7
                                                           40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


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, 3 rd 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.


13.   Petitioners and Respondent No. 2             through their Advocates

agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period

of two weeks from today.


14.   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 No. 775 of 2025 under Section 318(3) & Section 3(5) of BNS
                r/w Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 registered
                with Respondent i.e. MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, in the interest
                of justice and equity and also in the interest of principles of
                natural justice."

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

of costs on 12th October, 2026.



                                                                           6 of 7
                                                                  40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt


           16.       Learned Advocate for Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 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:
                    2026.09.28
                      20:38:37 +0530




                                                                                  7 of 7