Bombay High Court
RAKESH SHIVNATH PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is allowed; the FIR and charge‑sheet are quashed and the pending criminal proceedings are stayed.
Summary
The petitioner and the second respondent reconciled a monetary dispute of Rs. 4.5 lakhs, with part of the amount already paid and the balance to be paid in tranches. A consent affidavit was filed, and the petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0064 of 2025, registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with a stay of the related criminal proceedings. The Court examined its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Relying on the settlement and the absence of any prima facie case, the Court held that the FIR and the pending charge‑sheet could be quashed and the proceedings stayed. The petition was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 can be quashed on the basis of a settlement and consent affidavit.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (and Section 482 CrPC) to stay and set aside criminal proceedings in a case involving alleged non‑compoundable offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quashment of FIR
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CrPC
- settlement and consent affidavit
- criminal procedure
- non‑compoundable offences
- abuse of process
Judgment
90. CRI WP-4531-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4531 OF 2026
Rakesh Shivnath Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Jinesh J. Koli a/w Mr. Himanshu J. Patil, Advocates for
Petitioner
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State
Ms. Deepti Panadi, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Yuvraj Khairnar, PSI, Colaba Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Koli, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Talhar,
learned APP for State and Ms. Panadi, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
2. Parties have reconciled their dispute with regard to exchange of
amount of Rs. 4.5 Lakhs (approximately). Part of the amount of Rs. 2
Lakhs has already been received by the Complainant. Balance amount
will be received by the Complainant in separate tranches as agreed by
the parties. Consent affidavit dated 11.09.2026 filed by Respondent
No. 2 is taken on record. Parties are before the Court. I have interacted
with the parties. In view of the request made by the parties for consent
quashing, I am inclined to allow the present Petition.
1 of 3
90. CRI WP-4531-26.odt
3. 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.
4. 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
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 3
90. CRI WP-4531-26.odt
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.
5. In view of the above, the present Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) & (b) which read thus:-
“a. quash and set aside F.I.R. No. 0064 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025
registered with Colaba Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with the Chargesheet filed
pursuant thereto and bearing PW/852/2025 pending before the
Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 08th Court, Esplanade,
Mumbai, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, by invoking the extraordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
b Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ
Petition, stay the proceedings in proceedings in Police Case No.
PW/852/2025 pending before the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate (JMFC), 08th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on such
terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
6. Petition is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.19
13:57:43
+0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.