Bombay High Court
NISHIT HASMUKHBHAI MEHTA AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the FIR, and imposed costs on the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, businessmen involved in a diamond trade dispute, settled unpaid invoices amounting to Rs.1.52 crore and filed a consent affidavit confirming receipt of the settlement. They sought quashing of an FIR registered under sections 409, 420 and 34 of the IPC, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. The Court examined the Bhajan Lal guidelines on quashing FIRs, noting that non‑heinous commercial offences may be dismissed when the dispute is civil in nature and both parties consent. It held that while consent quashing is permissible, costs may be imposed to deter misuse of criminal law and compensate public resources. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the FIR was quashed, and the petitioners were ordered to pay Rs.25,000 to a charitable trust.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for non‑heinous commercial offences can be quashed on the basis of a settlement and consent of the parties
- Whether Section 528 of the B.N.S.S (in conjunction with Section 482 of the CrPC) empowers the High Court to quash such FIRs
- Whether costs may be imposed on parties seeking consent quashing of criminal proceedings
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 409, 420
- Public Trust Act, 1950
- Society Registration Act, 1980
Subjects
- consent quashing
- Section 482
- Section 528
- commercial dispute
- non‑heinous offence
- costs in criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
Judgment
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5976 OF 2025
Nishit Hasmukhbhai Mehta And Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Sachin Daga a/w. Ms. Shreyashi Panda, Advocates for
Petitioners.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Trushna Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
PSI – Sonali Ghadge, BKC Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Daga, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Phad
learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
2. The dispute between the Petitioners who are both
businessmen and known to each other having a business relationship,
stands duly resolved which had arisen on account of the unpaid
invoices regarding to trading of diamonds.
3. The Petitioners have filed a their additional affidavit which is
taken on record. The Complainant’s Consent Affidavit dated
08.10.2026 is taken on record. The Complainant is not present since he
is visiting a religious place.
1 of 6
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
4. The learned advocate for the Complainant has taken me
through the affidavit of Consent wherein the entire settlement amount
of Rs.1.52 Crores has stood received by the Complainant. As per the
details stated therein, I have no reason to disbelieve the same.
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
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
1 1992 AIR 604
2 of 6
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
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
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
3 of 6
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
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
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
4 of 6
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
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 for their actions resulting
in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the
parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs.
Hence, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- together
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, 3 rd 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. All Petitioners are present in
Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid
5 of 6
153.WP.5976.2025.doc
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 clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-
“a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writs or orders or directions in exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction and inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section
528 of B.N.S.S to call for records, quash and set aside the
impugned FIR bearing C.R. No. 184 of 2025 dated 12.04.2025
registered by Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai
against the Petitioners under B.N.S.S. for alleged offences under
the sections 409, 420, and 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 on
the basis of a police complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 2
together with all investigations and other proceedings ensuing
therefrom; and”
12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding
payment of costs on 23rd October 2026.
13. Advocates in 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 Petitions.
14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10
12:51:27 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…