Bombay High Court
ABHISHEK DIPAK INDREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and ordered the petitioners to pay costs, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482/528.
Summary
The High Court considered two writ petitions filed by Abhishek Dipak Indre and Akshay Nandkumar Kawale et al., seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for theft of LED TVs and a geyser from a resort. The complainant and the petitioners had reconciled and submitted consent affidavits requesting the court to dismiss the cases. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the analogous Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act, the court examined the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for consent‑based quashing. The court held that, since the offences were not heinous and the dispute was essentially civil, the proceedings could be quashed, but costs should be imposed on the petitioners to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, the court ordered the quashing of the FIRs and related criminal and civil proceedings and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.10,000 in total to a charitable trust. The order was to be complied with within two weeks, and the petitions were marked as allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of consent under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the Bombay Police Act.
- Whether costs may be imposed on petitioners in consent‑quashing matters to prevent abuse of the criminal process.
- Whether non‑heinous offences arising from civil or commercial disputes can be dismissed despite settlement.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Police Act (BNSS) — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Public Trust Act, 1950
- Registration Act, 1980
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- costs
- settlement
- high court inherent powers
- non‑heinous offence
- public resources
Judgment
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(157) WRIT PETITION NO.545 OF 2026
Abhishek Dipak Indre .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
(181) WRIT PETITION NO.4335 OF 2026
Akshay Nandkumar Kawale And Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Bharat Shinde, Advocate i/by Mr. Parthraj Ware for Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vinod Kendre, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
GPSI – R. V. More, Alibaug Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms.
Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Kendre, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. There are four Accused persons in these two Writ Petitions.
The Complaint was filed for theft of LED TVs and geyser from a resort
run by the Complainant. The parties have reconciled their disputes and
have persuaded the Court to quash the criminal proceedings so that
the parties can lead their life in future peacefully without the
hindrance of criminal proceedings.
1 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
3. Considering the request made by the parties, I am inclined to
accept the same.
4. Consent Affidavit of the Complainant in Writ Petition No.545
of 2026 is dated 09.04.2026 and Consent Affidavit in Writ Petition
No.4335 of 2026 is dated 09.09.2026. I have perused the Affidavits.
They are taken on record.
5. 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.
6. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
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
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.
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
3 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
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
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
4 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
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.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners 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 in both the Petitions, should pay costs. Hence, Petitioners in
both the Petitions are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- i.e.
Rs.2,500/- each in both the Petitions 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
5 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
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.
Petitioners in both the Petitions present in Court and through their
learned Advocates 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.
12. Writ Petition No.545 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-
“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order,
writ order in favour of the petitioner and may kindly quash the
proceeding bearing RCC No. 93 of 2025 pending before Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court Alibag pursuant to Bearing FIR No. I-
53 of 2025 registered on Dated 19/03/2025 offence U/s 305,
331(3), 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) of BNS register with Alibag Police
Station on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper qua the petitioner. ”
13. Writ Petition No.4335 of 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-
“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order,
writ order in favour of the petitioners and may kindly quash the
proceeding bearing RCC No. 93 of 2025 pending before Judicial
Magistrate First Class Court Alibag pursuant to Bearing FIR No. I-
53 of 2025 registered on Dated 19/03/2025 offence U/s 305,
331(3), 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) of BNS register with Alibag Police
Station on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper qua the petitioners. ”
14. In addition thereto Regular Civil Case No.93 of 2025
6 of 7
157.WP.545.2026+181.WP.4335.2026.doc
pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alibaug also stands
quashed and set aside.
15. List the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 23rd October, 2026.
16. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain
present and show compliance on behalf of all 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.
17. Writ Petition Nos.545 of 2026 and 4335 of 2026 are allowed
and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:49:58 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…