91. WP 1389-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2018 Amitsingh Rathore .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Mahesh D. Tiwari, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Manish Dubey, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. Parties are before me. This is a case of consent quashing with regard to an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Consent Affidavit is filed by the Complainant, father of the victim, who lost his life in an unfortunate accident while working on a construction site. The Petitioner before me is the Contractor. The Affidavit of the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 is dated 17.04.2018. This is a shelf matter which did not see light of the day for the past more than eight years. Be that as it may. I have perused the said Anand 1 of 8 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.19 15:05:34 +0530 91. WP 1389-2018.doc Affidavit. The amount of compensation received by the family of the deceased has been stated in paragraph Nos. 5 & 7. In paragraph Nos. 3 & 4, absolute consent is given for quashing of the present complaint qua the Petitioner. Though this Affidavit is filed in 2018, the Petition remained pending. The prosecution has also filed an Affidavit of Police Sub Inspector with regard to the directions given by the Court previously for placing on record the guide lines issued by the State with regards to workers employed in industries and energy related industries and more specifically, construction industries. Those guide lines are placed before the Court. Prima facie the compensation which has been received in the year 2018 is covered by the said guide lines under two different statutes. That apart, substantial cash component has also been received by the family members of the victim. In that view of the matter, no purpose will be served, since there is no direct mens rea attributable to the Petitioner with regard to the offence in question. Hence, I am inclined to accept the Petition. 3. 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 Anand 2 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc 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. 4. 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 further 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 Anand 3 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc 5. 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”. 6. 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 Anand 4 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc 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. 7. 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 Anand 5 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc at large while considering consent quashing. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner, for his actions resulting in 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. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under :- Name of Bank: Bank of Maharashtra Account Number : 60434381304 IFSC Code : MAHB0002075 Anand 6 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc MICR Code: 423014102 Registered Name : Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon. Registration No. : MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352/Nashik Office Address : S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No. 13, Near Panchaganga Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist.Nashik, Maharashtra, Mobile No. : +91 8208525304. The Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 9. 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 read thus:- “a) Quashing of the FIR No. 0328 OF 2016 Dated 08.10.16 Registered with Talegaon Dabhol Police Station (initially FIR NO. 0445 Lodged by Dehu Road Police Station dated 08.10.06 and then after Transferred to Talegaon Police Station) offence registered u/s 304A of Indian Penal Code in the interest of Justice.” 10. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026. 11. Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioner on the returnable date for Anand 7 of 8 91. WP 1389-2018.doc 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. 12. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 8 of 8