57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2025 Manoj Jadavbhai Patel .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2024 Ashutosh Kumar & Anr. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Bharat K. Manghani a/w Ms. Drushti Gala, Mr. Durren Kaskar & Mr. Paresh Joshi, Advocates for Applicant in APL 18/2025  Mr. Ashok Bhatia, Advocate for Applicant in 379 of 2024  Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for State  Mr. Ashutosh Kumar & Ms. Monika Ashutosh Kumar present ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Manghani, learned Advocate for Applicant in APL 18/2025; Mr. Bhatia, learned Advocate for Applicant in APL 18/2025 & Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for State. 2. Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025 is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing and setting aside the chargesheet / criminal proceedings registered at the instance of Respondent 2 1 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt against the Applicants arising out of C.R. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B. C.I.D. Property Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. 3. Both the Applicants are filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing and setting aside the chargesheet / criminal proceedings registered at the instance of Respondent 2 against the Applicants arising out of C.R. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B. C.I.D. Property Cell for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. 4. Parties have requested the Court to consider both the Criminal Applications for consent quashing. Charges against the Applicants were for cheating and forgery and other allied offences with regard to exchange of monies between the parties. Parties have reconciled all their differences and disputes and have already filed Consent Terms dated 12.02.2024 in Criminal Application No. 379 of 2024. I have interacted with the complainant on video call. He has stated in his 2 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt consent affidavit that he has received all his claim and given his consent to purge the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings in Special Case No. 1934/2023 He has also stated that his entire claim has been fully satisfied and he has no further grievance with regard to any claim. In view of the said consent affidavit dated 21.08.2026 which is appended at page No. 262 of Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025 and Consent Terms dated 12.02.2024, I am inclined to accede to the request made by learned Advocates appearing at the Bar and determine the present Applications accordingly. 5. 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 Cr.P.C.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 3 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt Cr.P.C. and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from case to case. 6. 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. 7. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court by “consent quashing”. 8. 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. 5 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt 9. 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. 10. 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 Applicants should pay costs. Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/-to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicants are present in Court and through 6 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt their learned Advocatse agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 11. I direct payment of costs 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 MICR Code: 423014102 Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon. Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik, 7 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra, Mobile No.: +91 8208525304. 12. In view of the above matter, the present Applications deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause "a" in both the Applicants which read thus:- "Criminal Application No. 18 of 2025:- “a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside Charge Sheet/Criminal Proceedings registered at the instance of the Respondent no. 2, against the Applicant arising out of Cr. No. 53 of 2023 at the D.C.B. C.I.D. Property Cell for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. Criminal Application No. 379 of 2024:- “a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R.No. 53/2023 filed by DCB CID, property cell unit, Byculla, arising from F.I.R. No. 385/2023 dated 20.7.23 filed by Versova Police Station and investigated by the Respondent No.1, registered at the instance of Ramkumar Dadhich and others, namely Manalal Gurjar, Purshottam Phagana, Seduram Meena, Babulal Meghwal, as investors, in respect of offence u/s 406, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C and u/s 3,4 of MPID Act, 1999." 13. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 15.09.2026. 14. Advocates for Applicants shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date for 8 of 9 57. APL-18-25 & APL-379-24.odt compliance. If they do 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. 15. Both the Applications are allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 9 of 9 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.01 14:58:16 +0530