16.WP.3838.2018.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3838 OF 2018 Sagar D. Sawant and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Vikram Parmar, Advocate i/by Sudatta Patil for Petitioners.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Saakshat Relekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  Ms. Kalpana Sapkale, Respondent No.2 is present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Relekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Petition is filed by Petitioners under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 02.02.2018 lodged at C.R. No.37 of 2018 under Sections 454, 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) registered with Khadakpada Police Station against Petitioners. Respondent No.2 is a suspended police constable. She is the Complainant. There was a transaction between Petitioners and Respondent No.1 with regard to Flat No.505, 5th Floor, Mangeshi City 1 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc II, B-1 Wing, Kalyan (West) for leave and license. 3. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that the Complainant neither entered into a registered agreement nor made any payment towards rent or licence fees to the Petitioners. The wife of Petitioner No.1 thereafter lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Kalyan as Respondent No.2 was employed as a police constable. However, on 02.02.2018, Petitioners were informed that Respondent No.2 had lodged a criminal complaint at Amalner and had been transferred to Kalyan Police Station. 4. The lis between the parties, inter alia, pertain to Complainant non paying rent for 18 months and forcibly occupying the flat of the Petitioners. However, Complainant filed a complaint against the Petitioners because it was initially refused to be registered by the concerned Police Station. Petitioners have also placed on record material to show that the Complainant has in the past committed similar offences and was released on bail by the Court. Allegations of Complainant against the Petitioners is that the Petitioners have stolen the jewellery of her flat. 5. At present, both the parties are before me. The Complainant is very old and rather hospitalised as informed by her son who is present in Court. Hospital papers are also placed before me and I have perused the same. 2 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc 6. Mr. Relekar, learned Advocate for Complainant would submit that Complainant has filed Affidavit of Consent dated 31.07.2026 stating that the parties have reconciled their dispute and the Complainant has received certain amount from the Petitioners and she voluntarily withdraws all allegations and accusations against the Petitioners. A demand draft of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.591276 dated 30.07.2026 in the name of the son of the Complainant is given to Mr. Relekar who has in turn given it to the son of the Complainant who is present in Court. Complainant has made the request that considering her medical condition and it is her express wish that the said demand draft towards settlement amount be drawn in the name of her son and given to him. 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 3 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc 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. 9. After perusing the Affidavit of Consent dated 31.07.2026 and the fact that the parties have reconciled their differences, there can be no impediment in allowing the present Writ Petition, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside FIR dated 02.02.18 lodged at C.R. no. 37/18 under sections 454, 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Khadakpada Police Station.” 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to impose costs for the simple reason that the Complainant has settled the matter with the Petitioners by accepting an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the name of her son. The record shows that Complainant is a suspended police constable having antecedents of similar nature. The case of the Complainant, even otherwise, does not inspire any confidence whatsoever in the mind of the Court. It appears clearly that Petitioners have bought peace by putting an end to the complaint by agreeing to the Complainant's demand of payment of Rs.50,000/- to her and putting an end to the criminal proceedings. 11. The facts of the case are such that on the face of record, it is seen that Complainant has behaved and committed excesses against the Petitioners. Complainant not only occupied the Petitioners' flat, but did not pay rent for more than 18 months and thereafter forcibly occupied the flat of the Petitioners and misused her position as a constable to file a false complaint against the Petitioners. There is prima facie material placed on record to show that the Complainant has in the past committed similar offences also and was released on bail. 12. In view of these serious facts, even though the parties have reconciled their dispute and the Petitioners have agreed to pay to the Complainant Rs.50,000/- in the name of her son, since the 5 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc Complainant does not have a bank account, I am inclined to levy costs on the Complainant in the present case for her omissions and actions. The Complainant is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Bombay. I am impelled to pass this order because the Complainant and/or her son cannot get a windfall as a reward for giving their consent for putting an end to the criminal proceedings. If the Complainant's consent is accepted simplicitor in such facts, it will send a wrong precedent. 13. Petitioners are benevolent and have agreed to the demand of the Complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- to her son and in lieu thereof, the Complainant has given her consent to quash the criminal proceedings. In my opinion, the Complainant does not deserve the amount of Rs.50,000/- also. But since Petitioners have agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and have come before the Court with a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- and have persuaded the Court through their Advocate to put an end to the matter by taking on record the consent of Respondent No.2, the present Writ Petition is determined. 14. Nevertheless, I direct payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai by the son of the Complainant who will be receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- in his Bank Account. The said costs shall be paid by the son of the Complainant through Complainant within a period of one week from 6 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc the date of receipt of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- in the son's bank account. 15. I make it clear that if the said costs are not paid, I direct that the son of the Complainant shall not use the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- and withdraw the same unless he pays the costs amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed hereinabove. If the son of the Complainant does not follow and obey this order, I shall be constrained to issue appropriate process and proceedings against the son of the Complainant, which is made clear. 16. The Advocate for the Complainant, Mr. Relekar is directed to ensure that son of the Complainant, to whom he shall hand over the demand draft of Rs.50,000/- is made aware about this order and he pays the costs to the Kirtikar Law Library as directed hereinabove. 17. Needless to state that the present matter shall be kept for compliance on 10th September 2026 to place the receipt of payment of costs before the Court, failing which the Court will pass appropriate orders. 18. Advocate for Complainant shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Complainant 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 Complainant/parties in the Petition. 7 of 8 16.WP.3838.2018.doc 19. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 8 of 8 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01 14:50:59 +0530