88. CRI WP-828-25.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 828 OF 2025 Rajendra Laxman Paigude & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Arvind D. Aswani, Advocate for Petitioners  Mr. Amit K. Munde, APP for State  Mr. Sahil Thakur Jodhwani i/by Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Aswani, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Munde, learned APP for State and Mr. Jodhwani, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Present Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2021 filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby directing investigation to Nigdi Police Station for alleged offences under Section 417, 419, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 1 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 3. Parties have reconciled their dispute and consented to quash the criminal proceedings by consent. The dispute emanates from the suit property which was the subject matter of the proceedings between the parties which has now been purchased by Respondent No. 2 and who has been in possession thereof. 4. Consent affidavit dated 16.09.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2 is placed before me I have perused the same. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court. Petitioners are also present in Court. Respondent No. 2 consents for quashing of the criminal proceedings in its entirety considering the reconciliation between the parties. 5. Considering the request made and the lis between the parties, I am inclined to allow the present Petition. 6. 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 2 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 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 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 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 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 4 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 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 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 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, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, 5 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 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. 12. Petitioners are present in Court and through their Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today. 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 clause (a) which reads thus:- “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune in Criminal Misc. Application No. 304 of 2021 filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. thereby directing investigation to Nigdi Police Station for alleged offences under Section 417, 419, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC." 6 of 7 88. CRI WP-828-25.odt 14. List the Petition for compliance of the order on 30th September, 2026. 15. Advocate for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on that date. If he does not remain present and there is non-compliance of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order. 16. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.17 11:00:23 +0530