Bombay High Court
POONAM VIJAY MATTE AND ANRversusRAM RAMDAS SAMUDRE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the FIRs/MECRs, and ordered each petitioner to pay Rs 10,000 as costs.
Summary
Petitioners Poonam Vijay Matte et al. and Ram Ramdas Samudre filed writ petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quash of FIR/MECR proceedings relating to alleged extortion, forgery and criminal intimidation. The parties had settled their private dispute, exchanged the disputed amount and filed consent affidavits indicating no further grievance. The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 528 (mirroring Section 482 of the CrPC) and the Bhajan Lal guidelines on quashing FIRs, noting that the offences were non‑heinous and arose from a civil/commercial dispute. It held that the petitions could be allowed but imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on each petitioner to deter misuse of criminal law. Accordingly, both writ petitions were allowed, the FIRs/MECRs were quashed, and the parties were directed to pay the costs to a charitable institution.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIRs/MECRs can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS in view of the parties' settlement and the nature of the offences.
- Whether the Court may impose costs on petitioners in a consent‑quashing proceeding.
- Whether non‑compoundable, non‑heinous offences may be set aside despite the filing of an FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 211, 34, 385, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 500, 504, 506(2), 509
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 482 CRPC
- consent quashing
- costs in criminal proceedings
- settlement of civil dispute
- Bhajan Lal guidelines
- non‑heinous offences
Judgment
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 994 OF 2026
Poonam Vijay Matte and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 995 OF 2026
Ram Ramdas Samudre .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Sonali Dalvi, Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.994 of
2026.
Mr. Abhilesh Vijay Chitre, Advocate for Petitioner and Writ Petition
No.995 of 2026.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
PSI – Mr. Dinesh Palav, Marine Drive Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Dalvi, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ
Petition No.994 of 2026; Mr. Chitre, learned Advocate for Petitioner
and Writ Petition No.995 of 2026 and Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for
Respondent – State.
2. Writ Petition No.994 of 2026 is filed by Petitioners i.e.
Poonam Vijay Matte and Vijay Matte under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash and set aside MECR
1 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
No. 5 of 2011 registered with Marine Drive Police Station against
Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 211, 385, 467, 468,
469, 471, 474, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Writ Petition No.995 of 2026 is filed by Petitioner i.e. Ram
Ramdas Samudre under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash and set aside FIR No.199 of 2008
registered at Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Section 500 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The learned Advocates jointly inform the Court that
Criminal Petition No.995 of 2026 is a cross-petition and has not been
listed today on board. The same is taken on board with the consent of
the parties.
5. Both these Petitions are cross-petitions qua the parties
thereto with regard to for extortion and forgery whereby the
allegations being that certain document, namely an Affidavit under the
RTI was fabricated and tampered with by the parties.
6. Be that as it may, the parties have reconciled their disputes
and differences to the extent of the amount that has been involved and
have exchanged the said amount and no longer have any grievance
with each other. The Consent Affidavits of both the parties are placed
before the Court. They both are dated 26.01.2026 and they are taken
on record. I have perused the same. On perusal of the said Affidavits,
2 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
I do not find any reason as to why both the Petitions should not be
allowed and the parties should be allowed to carry on with their lives
otherwise.
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
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
1 1992 AIR 604
3 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
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.
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
4 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
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.
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
5 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
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 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.
13. Hence, Petitioners in Writ Petition No.994 of 2026 are
directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) each and
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.995 of 2026 is directed to pay costs of
Rs.10,000/- 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. All Petitioners are present in Court and
6 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs
amount to the charity.
14. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.994 of 2026 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 a Writ of Certiorari
and/or other Writ, Order and/or Direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to call for
the record and proceedings in MECR No. 5 of 2011 dated
24.07.2011 registered with Marine Drive Police Station,
Mumbai, for offences punishable under sections 211, 385,
467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 504, 506(2) and 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and after ascertaining the legality and
propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside MECR
No. 5 of 2011 dated 24.07.2011 registered with Marine
Drive Police Station and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, including C.C. No. 800639/PW/2012,
pending on the files of Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in the interest
of justice.”
15. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.995 of 2026 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 a Writ of Certiorari
and/or other Writ, Order and/or Direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to call for
the record and proceedings in FIR No. 199 of 2008 for
offences punishable under Sections 500 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered with Marine Drive
Police Station, Mumbai, and after ascertaining the legality
and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside
FIR No. 199 of 2008 and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, including C.C. No. 800274/PS/2009,
pending on the files of Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in the interest
of justice.”
7 of 8
87.WP.994.2026 and 995.2026.doc
16. List both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order
regarding payment of costs on 16th September 2026.
17. Advocates in both Petitions 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 both Petitions.
18. Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.03
18:29:38 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…