13. APL-1095-25.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1095 OF 2025 Digambar Dnyandev Patil .. Applicant Versus The South Indian Bank Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Ashok B. Tajane (through VC) a/w Mr. Yuvraj A. Tajane, Advocates for Applicant  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for State  Mr. Pritesh Bansod (through VC) a/w D. Suvarna Rajesh i/by Pritesn Bansod & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No. 1 - Bank  Ms. Varshah Chavan, PI, EOW, Bkg 1, Unit 9, Mumbai ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Tajane, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Talhar, learned APP for State and Mr. Bansod, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 - Bank. 2. The present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR No. 517 of 2022 (E.O.W.C.R. No. 93 of 2022) registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai City subsequently lodged as EOW-CR No. 93 of 2022 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Complainant in the present case is Respondent No. 1 - The South Indian Bank, Andheri, Branch. The FIR is initially filed for 1 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt cheating and forgery committed by the Applicant and his wife, inter alia, with regard to submitting false documents for seeking loan of Rs. 15 Crore from the Bank. Insofar as the return of the said amount is concerned, prior to filing of the FIR, an amount of Rs. 1.7 Crore was already returned back to the Bank. 4. Respondent Bank filed Criminal Application No. 223 of 2023 qua cancellation of bail given to the Applicant and permission to withdraw the amounts which were already deposited pursuant to the Consent Terms and order passed by this Court to that effect on 06.08.2024. Later on the entire dispute with regard to the amount between Bank and present Applicant was settled under one time settlement on 31.10.2024 for the sum of Rs. 13.55 Crore which is received by the Bank as informed by Mr. Bansod. No-due certificate issued to the Applicant is appended at page No. 48 of the Application. 5. Civil Court proceedings including the Revision Application filed in this Court have all been withdrawn by the Bank in view of the aforesaid settlement between the parties. Parties are therefore persuading the Court to put an end to the lis between them and quash the criminal proceedings qua the Applicant by consent. 6. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to 2 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt 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. 7. 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, 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve societal implication. 8. 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”. 9. 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 4 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt 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. 10. 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 5 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting the society at large while considering consent quashing. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Applicant for his actions resulting in the Complainant Bank invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent due to their settlement, 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 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 within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. 12. Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocates agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the above charity. 6 of 7 13. APL-1095-25.odt 13. In view of the above matter, the present Applicant 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) Rule be issued. Record and proceedings of the case be called for and after examining, the legality, propriety and validity thereof the FIR No.517 of 2022 ( E.O.W.C.R No.93 of 2022) lodged with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai City subsequently, lodged as EOW-CR No.93 of 2022 and as well as charge framed on 15.02.2025 by the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplande, Mumbai in CC No. 749/PW/2022 and the proceedings CC No. 749/PW/2022 pending before Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplande, Mumbai, qua the Applicant be quashed and set aside." 14. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 1st October, 2026. 15. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show compliance 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 Applicant. 16. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.05 13:22:30 +0530