70-WP-3918-25.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.3918 OF 2025 Vikas Ranchod Shukla And Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Manisha Eknath Kavale And Ors. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.4061 OF 2023 Rahul Dinkar Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Satyajeet Joshi a/w. Mr. Chinmay Joshi, Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.3918 of 2025 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No.4061 of 2023.  Mr. Gavrav Parkar a/w. Mr. Shantanu Kadam, Mr. Tarang Jain, Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.4061 of 2023.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent-State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.3918 of 2025 and for Respondent No.2 in WP No.4061 of 2023; Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Parkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.4061 of 2023. 2. These Petitions are 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. 1 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc 3. In Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025, Petitioner No.1 is a practicing Advocate, Petitioner No.2 is a tax consultant and Petitioner No.3 is a younger brother of Petitioner No.2 and in service. Complainant is a tribal lady who has lodged atrocities complaint against them vide CR.No.440 of 2022. A cross complaint is lodged by Petitioner No.1 against Rahul Dinkar Patil, Bipin Dinkar Patil and Rohit Rameshchandra Pandey for assault and robbery bearing CR. No.441 of 2022. A cause of action in both the complaints is the same. It is argued that both parties belonged to rival panels for the election of Gram- panchayat and due to the election results filed the criminal complaints qua each other out of grudge and rivalry. 4. These are two cross Petitions. Two consent affidavits have been filed by the parties for reconciling their disputes. They have no further grievance with each other. Both the affidavits are taken on record. I have perused the same. Parties are present before the Court and I have interacted with them. 5. Considering the submissions made by both learned Advocates at Bar and the fact that the parties have filed cross FIRs and persuaded the Court to put an end to the cross complaints as they affect their future prospects, I am inclined to allow the Petitions. Both Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) respectively. 6. Affidavits dated 07.08.2025 of the Respondent No.1 - Complainant in Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025 and Respondent No.2 - 2 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc Complainant in Writ Petition No.4061 of 2023 are filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on record. The contents of the said Affidavit prima facie show that the entire dispute and settlement/ issue now stands resolved and hence parties now want to put an end to the criminal proceedings. 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 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc 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, 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”. 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 4 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc 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 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 5 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc 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 Petitioners for their actions resulting in the Complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs. Hence, all three Petitioners in WP No.3918 of 2025 and one Petitioner in WP No.4061 of 2023 are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- each 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. All Petitioners are present in 6 of 7 70-WP-3918-25.doc Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. In view of the above matter, the both Petitions deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed hereinabove. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ which read thus:- In Criminal Writ Petition No.3918 of 2025 “(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for record and proceeding from the Special Sessions Judge / D.J.-1 Palghar in respect of Special Sessions Case No.60 of 2022 arising out of C.R. No.440 of 2022, and after going through the legality and propriety of the same and after considering the fact that the said case is settled out of court between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, be pleased to quash the Special Case No.60 of 2022." In Criminal Writ Petition No.4061 of 2023 "(a) That this Hon'ble Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Session Court at Palghar being RCC no. 185 of 2023 arising out of CR no.441 of 2022 of Boisar Police station u/s 395, 308, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, of IPC r/w 37(1)(3) & 135 of the Maharashtra Police act in the interest of justice." 14. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 23rd September 2026. 15. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the returnable date for 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 Petitioners/parties to both Petitions. 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: 2026.09.07 10:52:07 +0530