107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2698 OF 2025 Madhu Sharma & ors. .Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3766 OF 2025 Manish Patel .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Yash Palan a/w. Ms. Sonal Mahadik, Advocates, for the Petitioners Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 2698 of 2025 Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 3766 of 2025 Ms. Neha Ahuja a/w. Mr. Amit Ahuja, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Palan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Karmakar and Ms. Newton, learned APPs for Respondent No. 1 – State and Ms. Ahuja, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The lis and dispute between the parties emanates from a purely Civil issue which led to filing of present complaint for Criminal breach Anand 1 of 8 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.19 15:00:35 +0530 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc of trust. The amount involved was Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Parties have exchanged the said amount today before me. I am informed that the agreed amount of settlement is now given to the Complainant. Complainant’s Affidavit dated 11.07.2026 is placed before me. I have taken it on record. The Complainant has filed separate Affidavits in both the matters for quashing of the FIR. The Complainant is present physically in Court. He confirms filing of the consent Affidavits. I have interacted with him. He is duly represented by the Advocate. He confirms receipt of the said amount. All parties request the Court to allow both Petitions by consent quashing as pending Criminal proceedings are affecting their life, future prospectus and business. 3. Insofar as W. P. No. 3766 of 2025 is concerned, in that case, his role is one of the broker and no money transaction is involved. Since it pertains to the same transaction in question in W. P. No.2698 of 2025 and the parties having given consent the Court is allowing it by consent quashing. Hence, W. P. No. 3766 of 2025 is also allowed. 4. 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 Anand 2 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc 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. 5. 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, rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve societal implication. 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc 6. 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”. 7. 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 Anand 4 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc 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. 8. 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 Anand 5 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc at large while considering consent quashing. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that all/both the Petitioners before me in both the Writ Petitions, for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings against each other and now all/both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners in both Petitions, should pay costs. Hence, Petitioners in both Petitions are directed to pay costs of Rs.7,500/- each in the two Petitions totalling to Rs.15,000/- 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. The Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. Anand 6 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc 10. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be allowed as directed herein above. They are allowed in terms of the prayer clauses as under :- Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus :- “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the FIR dated 14.04.2025 No. 82 of 2025 registered with Marine Drive police station qua the Petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings initiated therein qua the Petitioners.” Writ Petition No. 3766 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus :- “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the FIR dated 14.04.2025 No. 82 of 2025 registered with ‘Marine Drive police station qua the Petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all consequential proceedings initiated therein qua the Petitioner.” 11. List both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026. 12. Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioners on the returnable date for compliance. If he does not remain present and there is non-compliance Anand 7 of 8 107 & 110. WP 2698-2025 (common order).doc of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order, which shall be noted by the Petitioners. 13. Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 8 of 8