60-WP-5824-24.doc rsk IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5824 OF 2024 Asif Ali Ahmed Ali Shaikh .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Meghna Gowalani a/w. Mr. Saharsh Mangar, Advocates for Petitioner.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent-State.  Mr. Chetan Arvind Alai for Respondent No.2.  Mr. Kiran Sanjay Lad, PSI, Manor Police Station, Thane. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Ms. Meghna Gowalani, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Yogesh M. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Chetan Arvind Alai, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the CRPC/BNSS by parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of brevity. 3. The gist of the criminal complaint between the parties emanated from a civil dispute with regard to land and sale of premises 1 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc under Memorandum of understanding dated 15 January 2024. The parties have reconciled their disputes and an affidavit of consent on behalf of respondent No.2 who is original complainant has been filed which is affirmed before the Assistant Registrar High Court Appellate Side, Mumbai dated 1 March 2024. It is placed before me. 4. I have perused the same. By virtue of the said affidavit, said original complainant has acknowledged receipt of substantial amounts as stated therein and has concluded by stating that the parties have settled their matter and sorted out their differences and present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may kindly be allowed. Such averment is made in paragraph V of the said affidavit. 5. Ms. Gowalani has also placed on record release deed and conveyance deed executed between the parties pursuant to their settlement. In that view of the matter I find no reason as to why this petition should not be allowed so that the parties can proceed further in their lives without the ignominy of criminal proceedings. 6. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 is present in the Court. He has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2. He would submit that respondent No.2 has refused to come to Court notwithstanding the link that has been sent to him and he having asked him to remain present on Video Conferencing. In such strong circumstances and on the facts which prima facie are believable on the 2 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc face of record, if Respondent No.2 is not present before the Court, in my opinion it would not make any difference whatsoever. He may have other reasons for not remaining present before the Court once he has received the fruits of settlement. I have interacted with the petitioner on a Video call with the able assistance of his advocate. Respondent No.2’s Advocate is present before Court and he duly represents him. He has confirmed about the consent affidavit having been affirmed before the Court’s Assistant Registrar by Respondent No.2. This is crucial since Respondent No.2 is physically not present before Court today. His affidavit is accepted for 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 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 3 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc 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 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”. 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc 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 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 5 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc 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 Petitioner, for his action 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.15,000/- 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 about 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 6 of 7 60-WP-5824-24.doc 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. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. 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 clauses ‘a’ which read thus:- “a. This Hon'ble Court by issuing the appropriate Writ be pleased to quash CR No 83 of 2023 registered with Manor Police Station, at Palghar, 22/03/2023 under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code” 14. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 23rd September 2026. 15. Advocates in Petition for Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Petitioner 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 Petitioner/parties to Petition. 16. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.03 18:39:18 +0530