23-APL-1411-19.doc Urmila Ingale IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1411 OF 2019 Atithi Patel & Anr. .. Applicants Versus Economic Offence Wing & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Shanice Mansukhani a/w Mr. Samit Shukla &Mr. Mustafa Nulwala i/b Trilegal, Advocate for Applicant.  Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for State.  Ms. Prakruti Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  API- Mr. M.B. Patil, Economic Offence Wing Housing Unit 2 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Ms. Mansukhani, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms. Rao, learned APP for State and Ms. Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. Present Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash and set side the FIR bearing No. 69/2018 (Bangur Police Station CR No. 254/2018) dated 11.08.2018 and consequential proceedings thereto. 3. Ms. Mansukhani, learned Advocates for Applicants who are developers has persuaded me to consider the present Application to be determined by consent quashing. The Respondent-Complainant is also 1 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc duly represented by Advocate Ms. Joshi. Consent affidavit dated 21.04.2029 filed by Respondent No.2 - Complainant is placed before the Court. I have perused the same. 4. Briefly stated, the relationship between the Applicants and Complainant pertains to a transaction of purchase of flat. After the complaint was filed, it was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (‘EOW’, for short) and further investigated. The EOW found that there was 8 other similarly placed victims just like the Complainant. 5. Today, when the matter is settled between the Applicants and the Complainant, Ms. Mansukhani, in her usual fair mindedness placed on record additional affidavit. To be fair to the prosecution and EOW whose officer is present in the Court, settlement documents with respect to all 8 similarly placed persons along with the Complainant before me are reflected in the affidavit along with their respective settlement document appended at Exhs. ‘A’ to ‘I’. The said additional affidavit is taken on record. Copy of the same is given to learned APP who is present in the Court so that the same can be given to the EOW officer who is present for ascertainment and closure subject to verification. This therefore takes care of the objection raised by learned APP that they are yet to ascertain the aforesaid issue. The present Application is pending for the past more than seven years. 6. Considering the submissions made and all parties have 2 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc reconciled their lis, I am inclined to consider the request made by Applicants for consent quashing on the basis of the consent affidavit, copy of which is appended at page Nos. 38-43 of the Application. The said consent affidavit is in the form of Consent Terms filed before the MahaRera Authority, wherein the Complainant has made an averment that he shall withdraw all allegations and proceedings etc. qua the subject dispute. The Complainant’s Advocate is present in Court. She confirms the fact that all undertakings given in the Consent Terms have been fructified in the interregnum. She has filed further affidavit dated 21.04.2026 to that effect. In that affidavit in paragraph Nos. 4 to 9, absolute consent without any force or duress has been given by the Complainant for quashing of the criminal proceedings which is accepted by the Court. Hence, in my opinion, there can be no impediment in putting closure and quietus to the present dispute by consent quashing. 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 3 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc 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, 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 5 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc 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 Applicants for their actions resulting in the Complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant should pay costs. Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, vocational training centres and which also runs a Special School called 6 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc 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, 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. 13. Applicants are present in Court and through their Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. 14. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (a)(i) which read thus:- “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order allowing the present Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by quashing/setting aside the FIR bearing FIR No. 69/2018 (Bangur Police Station CR No.254/2018) dated August 11, 2018; (a)(i)This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order quashing and setting aside the Chargesheet filed by the Respondent No.1 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai in case No. PW/144 of 2020, in connection with First Information Report, i.e. C.R. No. 69 of 2018 dated August 11, 2018 (Bangur Nagar Police Station C.R. No. 254 of 2018) filed by the Respondent No.1, i.e. the Economic Offences Wing, for offences punishable under Section 34, 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3,4,5 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963.” 15. List the Application for compliance of the order on 6th 7 of 8 23-APL-1411-19.doc October, 2026. 16. Advocate for Applicants 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, which shall be noted by the Applicants. 17. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. Urmila Ingale [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 8 of 8 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.15 18:09:41 +0530