ASIF ALI AHMED ALI SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                     60-WP-5824-24.doc

rsk

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2024

      Asif Ali Ahmed Ali Shaikh                                .. Petitioner
                 Versus
      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.                        .. Respondents

                               ....................
       Ms. Meghna Gowalani a/w. Mr. Saharsh Mangar, Advocates for
        Petitioner.
       Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent-State.
       Mr. Chetan Arvind Alai for Respondent No.2.
       Mr. Kiran Sanjay Lad, PSI, Manor Police Station, Thane.
                                     ...................

                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE          : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:

      1.      Heard Ms. Meghna Gowalani, learned Advocate for Petitioner;

      Mr.Yogesh M. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and

      Mr.Chetan Arvind Alai, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


      2.          This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the

      CRPC/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.          The gist of the criminal complaint between the parties

      emanated from a civil dispute with regard to land and sale of premises

                                                                                1 of 7
                                                         60-WP-5824-24.doc


under Memorandum of understanding dated 15 January 2024. The

parties have reconciled their disputes and an affidavit of consent on

behalf of respondent No.2 who is original complainant has been filed

which is affirmed before the Assistant Registrar High Court Appellate

Side, Mumbai dated 1 March 2024. It is placed before me.


4.   I have perused the same. By virtue of the said affidavit, said

original complainant has acknowledged receipt of substantial amounts

as stated therein and has concluded by stating that the parties have

settled their matter and sorted out their differences and present

petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may kindly be allowed. Such

averment is made in paragraph V of the said affidavit.


5.   Ms. Gowalani has also       placed on record release deed and

conveyance deed executed between the parties pursuant to their

settlement. In that view of the matter I find no reason as to why this

petition should not be allowed so that the parties can proceed further

in their lives without the ignominy of criminal proceedings.


6.   Learned advocate for respondent No.2 is present in the Court. He

has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2. He would

submit that respondent No.2 has refused to come to Court

notwithstanding the link that has been sent to him and he having

asked him to remain present on Video Conferencing. In such strong

circumstances and on the facts which prima facie are believable on the


                                                                    2 of 7
                                                         60-WP-5824-24.doc


face of record, if Respondent No.2 is not present before the Court, in

my opinion it would not make any difference whatsoever. He may have

other reasons for not remaining present before the Court once he has

received the fruits of settlement. I have interacted with the petitioner

on a Video call with the able assistance of his advocate. Respondent

No.2’s Advocate is present before Court and he duly represents him. He

has confirmed about the consent affidavit having been affirmed before

the Court’s Assistant Registrar by Respondent No.2. This is crucial since

Respondent No.2 is physically not present before Court today. His

affidavit is accepted for consent quashing.


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

                                                                    3 of 7
                                                            60-WP-5824-24.doc


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 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

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”.



1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       4 of 7
                                                        60-WP-5824-24.doc


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,

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

                                                                   5 of 7
                                                           60-WP-5824-24.doc


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.


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

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

the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs.

Hence, Petitioner, is directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- towards the

corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a

Special School imparting education and training to the needs of about

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

                                                                      6 of 7
                                                                                               60-WP-5824-24.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.

                                  Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree

                                  to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


                                  13.       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 clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-

                                            “a. This Hon'ble Court by issuing the appropriate Writ be pleased to
                                            quash CR No 83 of 2023 registered with Manor Police Station, at
                                            Palghar, 22/03/2023 under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian
                                            Penal Code”


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

                                  payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.


                                  15.       Advocates in Petition 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/parties to Petition.


                                  16.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



rsk                                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                    Digitally signed
                    by AJAY
      AJAY       TRAMBAK
      TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.03
                    18:39:18 +0530




                                                                                                          7 of 7