SARTHAK SUDESH SANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                     98. CRI WP-4645-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4645 OF 2026

           Sarthak Sudesh Sane                              .. Petitioner
                       Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Ms. Nikita Chavan a/w Sanghpriya Sarode & Ms. Monali Gadhave
              i/by Mr. Saurabh Ghag, Advocates for Petitioners
            Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State
            Mr. Prashant Mishra i/by Mr. Bharat Jadhav, Ms. Purva Birla, Ms.
             Shruti Chande, Mr. Ankush Thakur, Ms. Tisha Thakkar & Mr. Ketan
             Gavhane i/by ENACT Legal, Advocates for Respondent No. 2
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

           Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing and setting aside of

           the FIRs and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.


           3.       The dispute between the parties has been reconciled with regard

           to the amounts which were exchanged between them. Consent

           affidavit dated 11.09.2026 filed by the Complainant is placed on

           record. Petitioner was not named in the FIR. Parties have decided to

           reconcile the dispute. In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the

           present Petition.



                                                                                     1 of 3
                                                     98. CRI WP-4645-26.odt


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

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
                                                                                    98. CRI WP-4645-26.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.

           6.       In view of the above matter, the present Petition is allowed in

           terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) which read thus:-

                               “a.      This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any
                                        other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records
                                        and proceedings of the said F.I.R bearing No. 72 of 2026 dated
                                        10.02.2026, Chargesheet filed before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate
                                        First class, 69th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai bearing No.
                                        PW/411/2026 dated 23.04.2026 and subsequent proceedings
                                        arising out of the said F.I.R and upon examining the legality,
                                        correctness and propriety of the proceedings conducted so far, be
                                        pleased to quash and set aside the said F.I.R and Chargesheet;
                               b.       That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
                                        or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent
                                        No. 1 not to initiate any action against the Petitioner in
                                        furtherance of F.I.R bearing No. 72 of 2026 and Chargesheet;
                               c.       That this Honourable High Court be pleased TO QUASH AND SET
                                        ASIDE the F.I.R No. 72 of 2026 dated 05.02.2026 and the
                                        Chargesheet filed before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First class,
                                        69th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai bearing No. PW/411/2026 dated
                                        23.04.2026 for offences punishable under Section 319(2), 318(2)
                                        and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section
                                        66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at the instance of
                                        Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai and any other subsequent
                                        proceedings arising out of the said FIR, qua the present petitioner
                                        and/or entire F.I.R. Chargesheet and subsequent proceedings
                                        arising out of the said F.I.R on such terms and conditions as this
                                        Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;


           7.       Petition is allowed and disposed.


Amberkar                                                           [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                     Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.19
                     14:54:18 +0530




                                                                                                     3 of 3