Bombay High Court

AMIT TIPNISversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 18 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court exercised its inherent power to quash the FIRs by consent and ordered the petitioners to pay costs to charitable trusts.

Summary

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 1863 of 2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, on the ground that the parties had settled their private dispute and wished to withdraw the criminal proceedings by consent. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS, referring to the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. It held that where the offence is not heinous and the dispute is essentially civil, consent quashing is permissible, but the court may impose costs to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the FIRs, and ordered each petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to specified charitable trusts. The order also directed compliance monitoring and listed the petitions as disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash FIRs and criminal proceedings by consent under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS when the parties have settled a private dispute.
Whether costs may be imposed on petitioners in consent‑quashing matters to prevent abuse of the criminal process.
Whether the offences alleged (under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 3(5) BNSS) are non‑heinous and thus amenable to quashing despite being non‑compoundable.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Public Trust Act, 1950
Society Registration Act, 1980

Subjects

consent quashing
Section 482 CrPC
Section 528 BNSS
settlement of civil dispute
costs in criminal proceedings
non‑heinous offence
public interest

Judgment

99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4716 OF 2026

Aakash Pawankumar Gupta & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4717 OF 2026

Amit Tipnis .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

....................
 Mr. Akhilesh Dubey a/w Mr. Amit Dubey & Ms. Esha Joshi,
Advocates for Petitioners in WP 4716/2026
 Mr. Ayush Kedia, Advocate for Petitioner in WP 4717/2026
 Mr. Pravin Pawar, PI, EOW Banking - 2
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. The present Petitions are filed seeking quashing and setting

aside of the FIRs and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Both the Petitions relate to cross complaints filed between the

parties though the amounts involved are different. Both the parties

have reconciled their dispute and have settled their respective claims

by exchange of monies. All parties are present before the Court and

1 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

they persuade the court to quash the criminal proceedings by consent

quashing. Considering the dispute between the parties and the nature

of the offence, I am inclined to allow both the Petitions.

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

1 1992 AIR 604

2 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

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 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”.

7. For above levy of costs the legal principle rests on the logic that

criminal law cannot be used as a bargaining chip or a tool for private

settlements after draining the State and judicial resources. In simple

words, Courts cannot be used as a recovery mechanism to settle scores

and/or bring the parties into subjugation. I am of the firm opinion that

imposition of costs in consent quashing matters is required to be levied

3 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

for three main reasons viz., wastage of public resources, consumption

of valuable judicial time and for deterrence against vexatious

litigation. This is because after criminal machinery is set into motion,

the Police Department is forced to take cognizance, conduct

investigations, attend courts, deploy personnel, collect evidence and

draft chargesheets, all using public funds/ public exchequer. Equally

substantial judicial time of the Trial Courts and Sessions Courts is

wasted for handling a case, presentation of a case, issuance of

summons, scheduling of trial dates, appointment of prosecutors and

their fees, etc. and ultimately if consent quashing is allowed such

judicial time stands completely wasted, which could have otherwise

been used for genuine Trial Court matters/ litigation. in one way such

matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous

pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.

8. Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs the

growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints

(especially matrimonial or commercial disputes) simply to force

financial and legal settlements. In a given case made out on merits of

the matter, even the Complainant can be put to costs while considering

a quashing Petition purely on merits depending upon the facts of each

case before Court. In some strong circumstances, even the State

machinery can be put to costs if a purely civil dispute between parties

4 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

strongly emanating from the facts on record is registered as criminal

case and given the flavor of criminality. This Court is also equally

conscious about not imposing costs blindly or mechanically if a

particular party is not found to be remiss or at explicit fault for

abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting

the society at large while considering consent quashing.

9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

I am of the opinion that the Petitioners for their actions resulting in

the Complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners are directed to pay

costs of Rs. 25,000/- each to charity as under:-

(i) Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4716 of 2026 shall pay costs of

Rs. 25,000 to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered

NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots

level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable

community development of destitutes, marginalized women,

elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care

services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by

livelihood training and practical vocational skill training

programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development

and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable

community groups and at present providing complete shelter,

5 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors

and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon

Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of costs

are as under:-

Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra

Account Number: 60434381304

IFSC Code: MAHB0002075

MICR Code: 423014102

Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha,
Malegaon. Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 /
Nashik,
Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near
Panchaganga Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik,
Maharashtra,
Mobile No.: +91 8208525304.

(ii) Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4717 of 2026 shall pay costs of

Rs.25,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust

which runs medical centres, vocational training centres and

which also runs a Special School called J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi

Vikas Kendra, imparting education and training to the needs of

150 special children in the field of Education (Classes for 6 to

18 years), early intervention (upto 6 years) and vocational

6 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

training (18 years above) having its school address and building

at A.K. Munshi Yojana Chowk, 3rd Panjarapole Lane, C.P. Tank,

Mumbai – 400 004 [Contact Nos. 22425513 / 22423654]

registered under the Society Registration Act, XXI of 1980 under

No. : 387/81 GBBSD and the Public Trust Act, XXIX of 1950

under No. F-6809. RCI Reg. No. 0163.

10. Petitioners through their Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid

costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today.

11. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserves to be

allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. Both the

Petitions are allowed in terms of their respective prayer clauses (a) &

(b) which read thus:-

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4716 OF 2026:-

“a That, the records and proceedings with respect to FIR No. 1863
of 2026 registered with Bandra Police Station dated 04.09.2026
under Sections 318(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita 2023, re-registered as CR No. 82 of 2026 with the
Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai be called for and the same be
quashed and set-aside;
b. That, the Settlement Agreement and the Affidavit of the
Complainant be taken on record."

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4717 OF 2026:-

7 of 8
99. CRI WP-4716-26 & 100. WP-4717-26.odt

quashed and set-aside;
b. That, the Settlement Agreement and the Affidavit of the
Complainant be taken on record."

12. List Both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order

regarding payment of costs on 9th October, 2026.

13. In addition to the above, Mr. Kedia informs that the last tranche

of settlement amount is likely to be received by his client after the

order for consent quashing is passed and uploaded by this court.

Compliance to that effect shall also be informed to the Court on the

date of compliance.

14. Learned Advocate for Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on the returnable date for compliance. If they do not

remain present and there is non-compliance of this order, Court will

pass appropriate order for recall of this order.

15. Both the Petitions are allowed and disposed.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.19
16:23:00 +0530

8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…