RAJENDRA LAXMAN PAIGUDE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                     88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 828 OF 2025

           Rajendra Laxman Paigude & Ors.                   .. Petitioners
                      Versus
           The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                  .. Respondents
                                       ....................
            Mr. Arvind D. Aswani, Advocate for Petitioners
            Mr. Amit K. Munde, APP for State
            Mr. Sahil Thakur Jodhwani i/by Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocates for
             Respondent No. 2
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Aswani, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Munde,

           learned APP for State and Mr. Jodhwani, learned Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2.


           2.       Present Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

           Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing and setting aside the impugned order

           dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

           Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2021 filed

           under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby directing investigation to Nigdi

           Police Station for alleged offences under Section 417, 419, 465, 468

           and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.




                                                                                   1 of 7
                                                      88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


3.    Parties have reconciled their dispute and consented to quash the

criminal proceedings by consent. The dispute emanates from the suit

property which was the subject matter of the proceedings between the

parties which has now been purchased by Respondent No. 2 and who

has been in possession thereof.


4.    Consent affidavit dated 16.09.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2 is

placed before me I have perused the same. Respondent No. 2 is

present in Court. Petitioners are also present in Court. Respondent No.

2 consents for quashing of the criminal proceedings in its entirety

considering the reconciliation between the parties.


5.    Considering the request made and the lis between the parties, I

am inclined to allow the present Petition.


6.    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



                                                                    2 of 7
                                                         88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


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.


7.       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.


8.       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

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                       3 of 7
                                                      88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


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”.


9.    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


                                                                    4 of 7
                                                      88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous

pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.


10.   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 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.


11.   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,

                                                                    5 of 7
                                                              88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


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.


12.   Petitioners are present in Court and through their Advocate

agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period

of two weeks from today.


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 clause (a) which reads thus:-

          “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
               other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature Article
               226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
               thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
               02.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
               Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2021 filed
               under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby directing investigation to
               Nigdi Police Station for alleged offences under Section 417, 419,
               465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC."




                                                                              6 of 7
                                                                                 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt


                 14.               List the Petition for compliance of the order on 30th September,

                 2026.


                 15.               Advocate for Petitioners shall remain present and show

                 compliance on that date. If he does not remain present and there is

                 non-compliance of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for

                 recall of this order.


                 16.               Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.


Amberkar                                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]



                Digitally signed
    RAVINDRA by RAVINDRA
             MOHAN
    MOHAN    AMBERKAR
    AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.17
                11:00:23 +0530




                                                                                               7 of 7