CHAND ABDUL REHMAN SHAIKH AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                 73-WP-6154-25.doc

rsk

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          WRIT PETITION NO.6154 OF 2025

      Chand Abdul Rehman Shaikh And Anr                 .. Petitioners
                 Versus
      The State Of Maharashtra And Anr                  .. Respondents
                                   ....................
       Mr. Anubhav Singh, Advocates for Petitioners.
       Mr. Amit Munde, Special PP for Respondent No.1 – State.
       Mr. Adnan Sarang, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                      ...................
                                     CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                     DATE       : AUGUST 29, 2026
      P.C.:
      1.      Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Sarang,

      learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Munde, learned

      Special PP for Respondent No.1 – State.


      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 SPP, 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.      FIR is filed on 26.06.2022 for cheating and forgery. Dispute

      between parties is about a flat premises, its entitlement, validity of the

      Gift Deed and the transfer agreement. Pursuant to the FIR, one month

      thereafter, Petitioner No.1 filed Civil Suit No.1620 of 2022 seeking

      declaratory relief and injunction. One year thereafter learned


                                                                            1 of 6
                                                         73-WP-6154-25.doc


Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 24.07.2023. In the Civil

Suit parties filed consent term dated 27.11.2024 and mutually settled

their claims. On 14.12.2024 National Lok Adalat passed a decree /

award disposing of the Civil Suit. Therefore parties have come before

Court for consent quashing.


4.   Parties have reconciled their dispute over the flat and have come

to terms. Consent affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.2 -

Complainant dated 17.11.2025. I have perused the same and it is

taken on record. Considering the contents of the said affidavit, the

petition deserves to be allowed.


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



                                                                    2 of 6
                                                                73-WP-6154-25.doc


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

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”.
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                           3 of 6
                                                        73-WP-6154-25.doc


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

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

                                                                   4 of 6
                                                           73-WP-6154-25.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.


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/- 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

                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                               73-WP-6154-25.doc


                    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 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 ‘b’ which read thus:-

                                       “(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
                                       other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, for quashing
                                       and setting aside the FIR C. R. No. 939 of 2022 and order of
                                       Cognizance dated 24.07.2023 and subsequent Chargesheet in C. C. No.
                                       PW/1247 of 2023 pending in the file of the Ld. Additional Judicial
                                       Magistrate C. R. No.9 Bandra;


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

                    payment of costs on 23rd September 2026.


                    13.                Advocates in Petition 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 Petition.


                    14.                Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


rsk                                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]


      AJAY
                    Digitally signed
                    by AJAY
                                                                                                          6 of 6
                 TRAMBAK
      TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
      UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.07
                    10:55:44 +0530