SACHINAM CHANGYA GURUSWAMY @ SANJAY @ SANJEEVA SHETTY @ SANJU SHETTYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                 86.WP.892.2026.doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 892 OF 2026

       Sachinam Changya Guruswamy @
       Sanjay @ Sanjeeva Shetty @ Sanju Shetty             .. Petitioner
            Versus
       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     .. Respondent

                                  ....................
        Ms. Swarali Joglekar a/w. Ms. Zehraa C., Advocates for Petitioner.
        Mr. Vijaykumar Dhotre, Advocate i/b Mr. Ajay Bhise for
         Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
        Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.
        Ms. Minakshi A. Nale, PSI, MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai – 01
         present.
                                     ......…...........

                                    CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                    DATE         : AUGUST 29, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.        Heard Ms. Joglekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.

       Dhotre, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and Ms.

       Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State.


       2.        This Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal

       Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) by the parties on the ground of "consent

       quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the

       respective parties and learned APP, 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.



                                                                            1 of 7
                                                        86.WP.892.2026.doc


3.        Complainant as well as two injured victims have filed their

Consent Affidavits in respect of quashing of an FIR registered way back

in the year 1996.


4.        Learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that trial

in the said proceeding has already culminated with acquittal of the

other three accused. She would submit that in view of confusion in

identification of the present Petitioner and his name, in so far as the

present Petitioner is concerned, the said proceeding proceeded before

the Trial Court without he being a party thereto.


5.        The Complainant and the injured victims having filed their

Consent Affidavits and with the lapse of time of approximately more

than 30 years, the parties have requested the Court to put a quietus to

the issue as all parties have moved on in life. I am of the opinion that

no purpose whatsoever would be served in keeping the said proceeding

alive any further qua the Applicant.


6.        I am inclined to therefore allow the present Writ Petition on

accepting the Consent Affidavits of the Complainant and the two

injured victims placed before me on record. The Affidavits are dated

04.03.2026. They are taken on record.


7.        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

                                                                   2 of 7
                                                           86.WP.892.2026.doc


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.


8.           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.

1    1992 AIR 604

                                                                      3 of 7
                                                        86.WP.892.2026.doc


9.       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”.


10.      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,

                                                                   4 of 7
                                                           86.WP.892.2026.doc


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.


11.       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.


12.       Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his actions resulting in



                                                                      5 of 7
                                                               86.WP.892.2026.doc


the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the

parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner should pay costs.

Hence, Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- towards the

corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra,

a Special School 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 – 400 004 [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.               Petitioner is

present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the

aforesaid costs amount to the charity.


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 clauses ‘a’ which read thus:-

          “(a)    Quash the Sessions Case No. 1093 of 2001 arising out of the FIR
                 registered vide C. R. No. 428/1996 of M.R.A. Marg Police Station
                 pending before the Lrd. Addl Sessions Court at Mumbai;”


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




                                                                           6 of 7
                                                                                           86.WP.892.2026.doc


                                 payment of costs on 15th September 2026.


                                 15.       Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show

                                 compliance on behalf of Petitioner on the returnable date for

                                 compliance. If he does 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 Petitioner/parties to Petition.


                                 16.       Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.



                                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

         Ajay
              Digitally signed
              by AJAY
AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.03
              18:29:25 +0530




                                                                                                      7 of 7