65.WP.3375.2025.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3375 OF 2025 Alnesh Akil Somji and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate i/by Mr. prasad Nagargoje for Petitioners.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.  API – Mr. Chhabu Berad, Crime Branch, Pune City present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. The parties have reconciled their disputes and differences and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 15.12.2022, copy of which is appended at page No.881 of the Petition. There is only one Complainant, however there are five private Respondents. Out of the five private Respondents, Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are present before the Court. The Principal Complainant is also present before the Court. Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have been duly served. Affidavit of service has been filed. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 have accepted service. Respondent No.5 was not available. However, 1 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc the MOU categorically admits and acknowledges that the said Respondents have received the amount in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also signed the MOU. 3. In view of the above, there can be no impediment in allowing the Petition by consent quashing of the criminal proceedings. The 3 consent Affidavits of Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are placed at page Nos. 892 onwards. I have perused the same. In view of the Affidavit of service having been filed and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 having not appeared before the Court, this Court cannot await their presence and thereby delay or adjourn the adjudication of the present matter. 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 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 2 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc 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 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. 4 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc 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 at large while considering consent quashing. 9. 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, 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 5 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc 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 Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount as directed. 10. Insofar as Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, it is clarified that they have received the flat in lieu of the money that they had paid to the Petitioners and that acknowledgment is found in the MOU. It is clarified that any Look-out Circular qua the Petitioners before the Court stands quashed and set aside. 11. In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates persuade the Court to allow the Writ Petition by consent quashing. The Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which read thus:- “a. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of FIR No. 153/2021 dated 01/11/2015 under Section 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act, filed with Koregaon Park Police Station, and the Charge Sheet in MPID Special Case NO. 49/2022 pending before the court of the Ld. MPID Special Court at Pune, and after looking 6 of 7 65.WP.3375.2025.doc into the legality and propriety thereof as well as the deposition of the Respondent No.2 to 6 to quash and set aside the FIR No. 153/2021 dated 01/11/2015; under Section 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act, filed with Koregaon Park Police Station and the Charge Sheet in MPID Special Case No 49/2022 pending before the court of the Ld. MPID Special Court at Pune and also quash and set aside the MPID Special Case No 49/2022 before Ld. MPID Special Court at Pune. b. that the Look Out Notice in C.R. No. 0153 of 2021 by Koregaon Park Police Station issued against the Petitioners and may travel restrictions imposed against the Petitioners may be quashed and set aside.” 12. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition is disposed. 13. List the Writ Petition on Board on 5th October 2026. To be placed under the caption ‘For Compliance’. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.19 13:01:19 +0530