Bombay High Court
ABHIJEETSINGH JATINDRSINGH GUJRALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court allowed consent quashing of both criminal petitions and imposed costs of Rs.12,500 each on the parties.
Summary
The Bombay High Court entertained two related criminal writ petitions arising from family disputes over a deceased's will, one based on an FIR of 2021 and the other on an FIR of 2024. Both parties, who are relatives, reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to quash the criminal proceedings by consent. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) and the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court examined whether the offences were non‑heinous and suitable for consent quashing. The court held that, given the private nature of the dispute and the absence of societal impact, the petitions could be dismissed, but imposed costs of Rs.12,500 each on the parties to be paid to a charitable trust. Accordingly, the FIRs and related charge‑sheets were set aside, further proceedings stayed, and the parties were directed to comply with the cost order within two weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings by consent under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the offences alleged (pertaining to will disputes) are non‑heinous and amenable to consent quashing.
- Whether costs should be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing and, if so, on what basis.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482 CrPC
- inherent powers
- family dispute
- will
- non‑heinous offence
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement
Judgment
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5113 OF 2026
Abhijeetsingh Jatindrsingh Gujral .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.19847 OF 2026
Manjitkaur Jaspalsingh Chaddha .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chetan Arvind Alai a/w. Mr. Rishab Chaurasia and Mr. Pranit
Pawar, Advocates for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026
and Respondent in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19847 of 2026.
Ms. Meghna Gowalani, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Alai, learned Advocate for Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.5113 of 2026 and Respondent in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.19847 of 2026 and Ms. Gowalani, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2 and Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026 and
Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026 is on board today. Parties are
seeking consent quashing.
1 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
3. At the outset, by consent both the learned Advocates - Mr.
Alai and Ms. Gowalani, persuade the Court to take on record and
board Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19847 of 2026 which is
supposed to be listed on 08.10.2026.
4. Both the learned Advocates inform the Court that parties are
the same. However these are two cross Petitions. Even though they
arise out of different First Information Reports but the cause of action
is the same. They inform the Court that the dispute had arise between
parties with regard to the Will of the deceased and subsequent issues
relating to distribution of estate.
5. Now the entire dispute between the parties is reconciled and
the looming criminal proceedings are required to be ended so that the
parties can live their life freely. It is prima facie seen that in the first
Petition, First Information Report is of the year 2021 and in the second
Petition, the First Information Report is of the year 2024.
6. I have perused the material on record and after going
through the same, I am inclined to accept the request made by both
the parties for consent quashing. Parties are personally present before
the Court and are identified by their respective Advocates and have
interacted with me and have persuaded the Court to put an end to the
criminal proceedings, since it is a family matter and all parties are
relatives.
2 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
7. 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.
8. 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 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 necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide
whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
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.
9. 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”.
10. 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 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,
4 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
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.
11. 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 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
5 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
at large while considering consent quashing.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner in both the Petitions for
their actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal
proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the
Petitioners should pay costs. However since the parties have set the
criminal law in motion, I am inclined to direct the parties to pay costs.
Both parties shall pay costs of Rs.12,500/- each that is total 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 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 within a period of two
weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Petitioner in both
the Petitions are present in Court and through their learned Advocates
agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.
6 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
13. Adhering to the request, both the Petitions are allowed by
the Court by consent quashing.
14. Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026 stands allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) to (c) which read thus:-
“a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
bearing No. 1-132 of 2021 registered with Mumbai Naka Police
station, Nashik qua the present Petitioner herein (original
accused no.2);
b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
Chargesheet bearing no. 137/2021 and supplementary
chargesheet bearing No. 125 of 2022 filed in FIR bearing no. I-
132 of 2021 registered with Mumbai Naka Police station, Nashik
qua Petitioner herein (accused no.2) and the ancillary proceeding
bearing no. R.C.C. no 1169 of 2021 arising out of the said FIR
bearing 1-132 of 2021 registered with Mumbai Naka Police
station, Nashik;
c) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition,
stay all further proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 1-132 of 2021
qua the Petitioner and direct that no coercive steps be taken
against the Petitioner in connection therewith. ”
15. Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19847 of 2026 stands allowedin
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:-
“(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting
aside C.R. No. 170 of 2024 dated 16.06.2024 registered with
Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik, for offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua
the present Petitioner;
(b) pending final disposal of this Petition, stay further proceedings
arising from the said C.R. No. 170 of 2024 qua the present
Petitioner, on such terms as this Hon'ble Court considers
appropriate;”
16. List the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 15th October 2026.
7 of 8
39.WP.5113.2026.doc
17. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioner shall remain
present and show compliance on behalf of both Petitioners 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, which shall be noted by the Petitioners/parties
to both Petitions.
18. Writ Petition No.5113 of 2026 and Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.19847 of 2026 are allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.01
19:16:01 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…