Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIJAY BAL CHITRE AND ORSversusMUKESH CHOTELAL MISHRA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings, holding that continuation of the prosecution would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Summary

The petition arose from a labour dispute between the petitioners, who run a transportation business, and the Mal Vahatuk Sena Union over loading and unloading work, leading to a complaint of extortion for a demand of ₹1,000. The parties later reconciled and filed a consent affidavit seeking to terminate the criminal proceedings. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS to quash FIR No. 17 dated 22 January 2021, which alleged offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the prosecution was not in the interest of justice and that the FIR could be dismissed. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can quash the FIR and pending criminal proceedings under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS in view of the parties' settlement.
  • Whether the alleged offences (extortion under IPC §§384, 386, 387 r/w 34) are amenable to quashment despite being non‑compoundable.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • extortion
  • quash of FIR
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • Section 528 BNSS
  • settlement
  • abuse of process
  • Article 226
  • Indian Penal Code
  • labour dispute

Judgment

                                                                     94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2026

           Vijay Bal Chitre & Ors.                            .. Petitioners
                       Versus
           Mukesh Chotelal Mishra & Anr.                      .. Respondents
                                         ....................
            Mr. Rishi Bhuta a/w Ms. Sonali Dalvi i/b Ms. Sonali Sudesh Dalvi,
               Advocates for Petitioners
            Mr. Akshay Dhingale, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
            Petitioners & Complainant present
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Bhuta, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.

           Dhingale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1.


           2.       Complainant and all Petitioners are present before this Court.

           The dispute arose between the parties by virtue of the facility and

           working conditions for the members of the Mal Vahatuk Sena Union

           regarding loading and unloading work provided by Petitioners who are

           running a transportation business.


           3.       Parties have reconciled their disputes. Though the complaint is

           for extortion, at first blush it may appear serious, but the complaint is

           lodged on the basis of a demand for ₹ 1,000 demanded by Petitioners.

           Be that as it may, the consent affidavit dated 06.09.2026 filed by



                                                                                     1 of 3
                                                     94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt


Complainant is before the Court. He would persuade the Court to put

an end to the criminal proceedings so that both parties can be free to

carry on with their work freely. Considering the lis in the present

matter and the nature of the lis, I am inclined to accept the request

made by parties for consent quashing.


4.       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.


5.       In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                     2 of 3
                                                                                    94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt


           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.


           6.         In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

           clause (a) which reads thus:-

                                  “a.   This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or
                                        any other Writ, Order and/or Direction under Article 226 of the
                                        Constitution of India and be pleased to call for the record and
                                        proceedings in FIR bearing No. 17 dated 22nd January 2021
                                        registered with Sahar Police Station, Mumbai, for offences
                                        punishable under sections 384, 386, 387 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
                                        Code and all proceedings arising therefrom including Police Cases
                                        PW/6301668/2021 pending on the files of the Learned Judicial
                                        Magistrate First Class, 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, and after
                                        ascertaining the legality and propriety thereof be pleased to
                                        quash and set aside and all proceedings arising therefrom
                                        including Police Cases PW/6301668/2021 pending on the files of
                                        the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 63rd Court, Andheri,
                                        Mumbai in the interest of justice.


           7.         Petition is allowed and disposed.



Amberkar                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.19
                     16:20:12 +0530




                                                                                                    3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.