29.WP.825.2020.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. 825 OF 2020 Shrenik Jayantilal Jain and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Vatsal Parmar, Advocate i/by MK Juris Associates for Petitioners.  Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.  Ms. Dipika Batheja a/w. Mr. Sumit Raghani, Advocates i/by Agrud Partners for Respondent No.2. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Parmar, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Batheja, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The relationship between the parties before me is prima facie seen from the record of the case. There was a dispute with regard to the flat which led to filing of Commercial Suit No.1111 of 2018, which was prosecuted in this Court wherein several orders have been passed. Substantial amounts are also held by the Court Receiver with regard to the subject flat as well as which will determine the rights of the parties. During the same time FIR was filed by the Complainant who is arraigned as Respondent No.2 before me. 1 of 4 29.WP.825.2020.doc 3. Both the parties persuaded the Court that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the said FIR be quashed by consent quashing. I have perused the consent Affidavit of Respondent No.2 - Complainant. It is dated 15.09.2026. It is placed before me by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 to submit that Respondent No.2 is presently travelling and not available in Mumbai. I have interacted with Respondent No.2 through video call. He affirms the filing of consent affidavit. 4. 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. 2 of 4 29.WP.825.2020.doc 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. In view of the above, learned Advocates persuade the Court to allow the present Petition by consent quashing. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for parties the Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which reads thus:- b. Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, for Quashing of the FIR No. 278 of 2018 registered with Dindoshi Police 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 4 29.WP.825.2020.doc Station on 16.05.2018 subsequently transferred to EOW as FIR No. 49 of 2018 and case no. C.C. no. 812/PW/2019 before Hon’ble Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Esplanade Court.” 8. In view of the above, the FIR No.278 of 2018 registered with Dindoshi Police Station and re-registered as 49 of 2018 with E.O.W. and the charge-sheet bearing Criminal Case No.812/PW/2019 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Esplanade Court, Mumbai is quashed and set aside. 9. Writ Petition is disposed. 10. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 4 of 4 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.18 10:09:50 +0530