Bombay High Court

AKHTAR HASAN RIZVIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 8 October 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The petition is allowed, the FIR is quashed, and the petitioner is ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to a designated charitable trust.

Summary

The petitioner, Akhtar Hasan Rizvi, was charged with mischief relating to a 1979 land mutation entry. The parties later reconciled and filed consent terms with the statutory revenue officers to delete the mutation, with the complainant receiving the benefit and the petitioner receiving none. The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of consent. The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS, referring to the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs. Finding the dispute civil in nature and the offences non‑heinous, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR, and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to a charitable trust.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 465-468, 471 IPC read with Section 34 can be quashed by consent under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the Court may impose costs on the petitioner in a consent‑quashing petition.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

Subjects

consent quashing
Section 528 BNSS
Section 482 CrPC
land mutation dispute
mischief
costs in criminal proceedings
civil settlement of criminal matters
public interest litigation

Judgment

189.WP.5266.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5266 OF 2026

Akhtar Hasan Rizvi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Rubina Akhtar Rizvi,
Ms. Sonam Pandey, Ms. Asmi Desai and Ms. Anjali Khapre,
Advocates for Petitioner.
 Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
 Mr. Aasim S. Gholap, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Chavan, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner;

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

Gholap, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

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

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by parties on the ground of

"consent quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates

for the respective parties and learned APP, I have perused the entire

record of the case. I do not find it necessary to delineate the same in its

entirety herein for the sake of brevity.

3. Petitioner is indicted in the present crime for committing

mischief with regard to mutation entry of the year 1979 in respect of a

1 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

plot of land which was admittedly 300 square meters and adjacent to a

larger piece of land which was developed by Petitioner. After the

present complaint is filed and proceedings are invoked before the

Statutory Revenue Officers under the provisions of the Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, both the parties have reconciled their dispute

with regard to entitlement of the subject plot and have before the

Statutory Officers filed Consent Terms with regard to deletion of the

subject mutation entry whereby Complainant gets benefit of the subject

plot and Petitioner has not received any benefits, neither taken any

advantage out of the subject plot which is prima facie evident.

4. The Consent Terms which are filed before the Statutory

Officers, copy of the Consent Terms are appended at page No.150 of

the present Petition. I have perused the same with the able assistance

of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Chavan. After perusing the same, I

have no reason or doubt to disbelieve the same. Complainant is equally

present in the Court. The Affidavit-cum-No objection of Complainant is

appended at page No.160 of the Petition. I have perused the same. In

view of the request made and the reconciliation of the dispute and the

dispute between the parties which was essentially civil in nature, I am

inclined to accept the request made for consent quashing.

5. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to

2 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

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.

6. 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

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

1 1992 AIR 604

3 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

because they involve societal implication.

7. 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”.

8. 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,

conduct investigations, attend courts, deploy personnel, collect

evidence and draft chargesheets, all using public funds/ public

4 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

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.

9. 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

at large while considering consent quashing.

5 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his actions resulting in

the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, Petitioner should pay costs.

Hence, Petitioner is directed to 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

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 is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree

to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

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

be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so

allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:-

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, and in exercise of its powers under

6 of 7
189.WP.5266.2026.doc

Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash
and set aside Crime No. 1222 of 2026 registered at Bandra
Police Station, Brihanmumbai (now C.R. No. 69 of 2026,
DCB CID Unit-II, Mumbai) for offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, being
EXHIBIT-B hereto, and all investigation, proceedings and
steps consequent thereto.”

12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 29th October 2026.

13. Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of Petitioner on the returnable date for

compliance. If he does 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 Petitioner.

14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.10.09
15:14:46 +0530

7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…