SHRENIK JAYANTILAL JAIN AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                  29.WP.825.2020.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2020

       Shrenik Jayantilal Jain and Anr.                    .. Petitioners
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                       .. Respondents

                              ....................
        Mr. Vatsal Parmar, Advocate i/by MK Juris Associates for
         Petitioners.
        Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
        Ms. Dipika Batheja a/w. Mr. Sumit Raghani, Advocates i/by Agrud
         Partners for Respondent No.2.
                                     ......…...........

                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE         : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms.

       Phad, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Batheja, learned

       Advocate for Respondent No.2.


       2.        The relationship between the parties before me is prima facie

       seen from the record of the case. There was a dispute with regard to

       the flat which led to filing of Commercial Suit No.1111 of 2018, which

       was prosecuted in this Court wherein several orders have been passed.

       Substantial amounts are also held by the Court Receiver with regard to

       the subject flat as well as which will determine the rights of the parties.

       During the same time FIR was filed by the Complainant who is

       arraigned as Respondent No.2 before me.

                                                                             1 of 4
                                                        29.WP.825.2020.doc


3.        Both the parties persuaded the Court that in view of the

amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the said FIR be

quashed by consent quashing. I have perused the consent Affidavit of

Respondent No.2 - Complainant. It is dated 15.09.2026. It is placed

before me by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 to submit that

Respondent No.2 is presently travelling and not available in Mumbai. I

have interacted with Respondent No.2 through video call. He affirms

the filing of consent affidavit.


4.        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.



                                                                   2 of 4
                                                                    29.WP.825.2020.doc


5.           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.


6.           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.


7.           In view of the above, learned Advocates persuade the Court

to allow the present Petition by consent quashing. Considering the

facts of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates for parties the Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘b’ which reads thus:-

             b.     Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
                    direction in the nature of certiorari, for Quashing of the
                    FIR No. 278 of 2018 registered with Dindoshi Police
1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                                  3 of 4
                                                                                       29.WP.825.2020.doc


                                            Station on 16.05.2018 subsequently transferred to EOW
                                            as FIR No. 49 of 2018 and case no. C.C. no.
                                            812/PW/2019 before Hon’ble Addl. Chief Metropolitan
                                            Magistrate 47th Esplanade Court.”




                              8.       In view of the above, the FIR No.278 of 2018 registered with

                              Dindoshi Police Station and re-registered as 49 of 2018 with E.O.W.

                              and the charge-sheet bearing Criminal Case No.812/PW/2019 pending

                              before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Esplanade

                              Court, Mumbai is quashed and set aside.


                              9.       Writ Petition is disposed.


                              10.      However, there shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

       AjayDigitally signed
            by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
            2026.09.18
            10:09:50 +0530




                                                                                                    4 of 4