Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED FAISAL MOHAMMED FAIZAN SHAIKH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed both petitions and quashed the FIRs and all related proceedings on the basis of the parties' consent settlement and its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The Bombay High Court entertained two writ petitions filed by Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Faizan Shaikh and Rehmat Mohammed Aslam Shaikh seeking quashing of FIRs and related proceedings arising from assault offences. The petitioners and complainants, who reside in close proximity, voluntarily settled their differences and submitted consent affidavits requesting the court to dismiss the cases. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and guided by the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court examined whether the offences—though non‑compoundable—could be quashed in the interest of justice. The court held that, given the mutual settlement and absence of any prima facie case, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to quash the FIRs and all consequential proceedings. Accordingly, both petitions were allowed, the FIRs and charge‑sheets were set aside, and the matters were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a consent settlement between parties can justify quashing FIRs for non‑compoundable offences such as assault under Sections 324, 323, 504, 354, 509 and 34 of the IPC.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS) to dismiss criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.
- Whether the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal apply to the present case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 354, 504, 509
Subjects
- consent quashing
- inherent powers
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offences
- assault
- settlement
- High Court discretion
- criminal procedure
Judgment
93 & 94. WP-4500-26 & 4502-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4500 OF 2026
Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Faizan Shaikh &
Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4502 OF 2026
Rehmat Mohammed Aslam Shaikh & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ashraf Khan, Advocate for Petitioners in WP 4500/26
Mr. Rafid Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in WP 4502/26
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for State
Mr. Satish Kalbhor, PSI, Trombay Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 1, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP
4500/26; Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP 4502/26,
and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for State.
2. Present Petitions are filed seeking quashing and setting aside of
the FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.
3. All parties are present before the court. Both the Petitions are
arising out of cross complaints filed by the concerned parties. Consent
1 of 4
93 & 94. WP-4500-26 & 4502-26.odt
affidavit dated 01.09.2026 filed by Complainants in Writ Petition
4500/26 is appended at page Nos. 66-68 of the Petition whereas
consent affidavit dated 01.10.2026 filed by Complainants in Writ
Petition No. 4502/26 is placed before me.
4. I have interacted with the parties who are present in Court
before me with the able assistance of their learned Advocates.
Parties are residing in the same locality in very close proximity to each
other and with the able assistance of the elders and well-wishers and
in order to maintain peace and harmony and cordial relations in the
community, have voluntarily decided to forgive their grievances for
each other which had led to the offences in the present case.
5. Though it is seen that the offences pertain to assault which was
of a grievous nature, the cause for the same with regard to the issue
which had arisen in the hospital will also equally have to be seen.
Since the parties have decided to forget the past and go on in their
life, they have requested the Court to allow consent quashing.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, I am
inclined to allow both the Petitions for 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
2 of 4
93 & 94. WP-4500-26 & 4502-26.odt
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.
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,
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 4
93 & 94. WP-4500-26 & 4502-26.odt
rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement
because they involve societal implication.
9. Both the Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)
which reads thus:-
WRIT PETITION No. 4500/26:-
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings FIR No.
253/2020 vide Court Case No. 601/PW/2023 pending before the
JMFC, 60th Court, Kurla, Mumbai.
WRIT PETITION No. 4502/26:-
(b) To quash the chargesheet FIR dated 04.09.2020 registered at the
instance of Respondent No. 2 with Trombay Police Station at C.R.
No. 254 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 324,
323, 504, 354, 509 and 34 against the Petitioners."
10. All consequential proceedings arising therefrom are also
quashed and set side.
11. Both the Petitions are allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.10.01
19:54:16
+0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…