AKHIL SURESHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                        95. CRI WP-4644-26.odt


Amberkar

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4644 OF 2026

           Akhil Suresh                                               .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Agastya Desai, Advocate for Petitioner
            Rushan Balsara, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                                            ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE          : OCTOBER 1, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.


           2.       Present Petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the

           FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.


           3.       The incident in question had arisen out of a sudden road traffic

           collision between the vehicles of the parties before the Court. It led to

           an altercation and the subsequent assault. The incident was

           undoubtedly not premeditated and happened at the spur of the

           moment because of the accident in question.


           4.       Parties have reconciled the dispute and have approached the

           Court to quash the criminal proceeding by consent so that both the

           parties can lead their life without the stigma of the criminal

           proceeding looming on their heads.



                                                                                        1 of 3
                                                     95. CRI WP-4644-26.odt


5.       The Consent Affidavit dated 01.10.2026 filed by Respondent No.

2 - Complainant is placed on record. Parties are present in Court. I

have interacted with them. In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the

present Petition.


6.       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.


7.       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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                     2 of 3
                                                                                      95. CRI WP-4644-26.odt


           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.


           8.        Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) which

           read thus:-

                     "a)                 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers
                                         u/s. 528 of the B.N.S.S. and be pleased to quash impugned F.I.R.
                                         bearing No. 0533 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026 lodged with Ghatkopar
                                         Police Station;
                     b)                  This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash any/all proceedings
                                         arising out of F.I.R. No. 0533 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026 lodged with
                                         Ghatkopar Police Station."


           9.        Petition is allowed and disposed.




Amberkar                                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                    2026.10.01
                      19:55:40 +0530




                                                                                                      3 of 3