MONA RAJESH GUPTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                       115. WP 6354-2025.doc

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6354 OF 2025

                      Mona Rajesh Gupta                                             .Petitioner

                                Vs.

ANAND                 The State of Maharashtra & anr.                               .Respondents
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Digitally signed by
                      Mr. Kunal Phoole, Advocate, for the Petitioner
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME                Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State
Date: 2026.09.19
19:52:46 +0530        Ms. Ankita N. Thakur i/b. Ms. Bhavana, Advocates, for Respondent No.
                      2

                                               CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                               DATE         : 11.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Heard      Mr.      Phoole,    learned      Counsel   for    the    Petitioner,

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

                      Thakur, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

                      2.      The lis between the parties who are mother-in-law and

                      daughter-in-law has been reconciled by both of them. Both

                      parties are present in Court. I have interacted with them. They

                      confirm about resolution of their dispute and request for consent

                      quashing.       Affidavit     of   consent     dated    18.11.2025     is filed     by

                      Respondent No. 2, copy of which is appended at page No. 54. I

                      have    perused      the      same.      Parties    have   decided     to    amicably

                      withdraw all allegations qua each other and live happily. Their request

                      Anand                                      1 of 4
                                                     115. WP 6354-2025.doc

is allowed. The Petition stands allowed.

3.      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.

4.      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

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
1
     1992 AIR 604

Anand                             2 of 4
                                                        115. WP 6354-2025.doc

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.


5.      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”.


6.      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. There shall no order as to costs.


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

allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:-


Anand                                3 of 4
                                                            115. WP 6354-2025.doc

           “a)   This Hon’ble Court may kindly quash and set aside the FIR No.
                 107 of 2022 registered with Oshiwara Police Station for Offences
                 section 3(1)(R)(S) Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribe
                 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and U/s. 504, 506 of IPC and the
                 consequential Chargesheet filed in Special Case No. 320/2022
                 pending with Hon’ble City Court and Additional Session Judge
                 Court no 12 at Dindoshi at the instance of the Respondent No. 2.”



8.      Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


                                                      (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                 4 of 4