VIKASH NARESH CHILLAR AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                                                                              16. WP 4614-2026.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 4614 OF 2026

                      Vikash Naresh Chillar & ors.                       .Petitioners

                                     Vs.

                      The State of Maharashtra & anr.                    .Respondents

                      Mr. Punit Gehi a/w. Mr. Siddheshwar Galande, Advocates, for the
                      Petitioners
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No.1 – State
SUDAME                Mr. Vishal Dhasade, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
                      Mr. Harshal Ghagare, PSI, Viman Nagar Police Station, Pune present
Date: 2026.10.01
21:38:41 +0530

                                             CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                             DATE     : 01.10.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.       Heard Mr. Gehi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Newton,

                      learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Dhasade, learned

                      Counsel for Respondent No.2.

                      2.       The parties are all young offenders before me. The incident in

                      question happened at the spur of the moment, whereby a scuffle took

                      place.       Certain      injuries    occurred.   Affidavit       of    the

                      Complainant/Respondent No. 2 dated 29.08.2026 is filed before the

                      Court. I have interacted with all the parties – five Petitioners and the

                      Complainant. Considering the stand that they have adopted and the

                      fact that the Petitioners are students persuade me to consider the

                      Anand                                1 of 4
                                                      16. WP 4614-2026.doc

present case for consent quashing.

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 Lal 1 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

further 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
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                            2 of 4
                                                        16. WP 4614-2026.doc

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. This is not so in the present case. All

parties are young, educated and are remorseful for what had

happened.


5.      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”.


6.      However, in the facts of the present case, there shall be no order

as to costs.


7.      In view of the above, the present Petition deserves to be




Anand                              3 of 4
                                                                 16. WP 4614-2026.doc

allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ which

read thus:-

           “a)   Call for the record and proceedings pertaining to FIR No. 0150 of
                 2026 dated 14.03.2026 registered with Viman Nagar Police
                 Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1),
                 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 189(2), 189(4), 190 and 191(3) of the
                 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and be pleased to quash and set
                 aside the said FIR in its entirety, insofar as the Petitioners and the
                 allegations arising from the subject matter thereof are concerned,
                 in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the
                 Petitioners and Respondent No.2;
           b)    Be pleased to quash and set aside the Final Report/Charge Sheet
                 dated 17.07.2026 filed pursuant to FIR No. 0150 of 2026, and
                 consequently quash the criminal proceedings bearing RCC No.
                 3119 of 2026, wherein presently Petitioner No. 2 is arrayed as a
                 party, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
                 Court No. 2, Shivajinagar, Pune;
           c)    Be pleased to quash and set aside all consequential proceedings,
                 actions and processes arising out of FIR No. 0150 of 2026 and the
                 Charge Sheet filed pursuant thereto, insofar as the Petitioners are
                 concerned, including any further proceedings arising therefrom.”

8.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.




                                                         (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                  4 of 4