68. APL 254-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 254 OF 2026 Hitanshu Bhimsen Bagga .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Marmik Shah a/w. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Ruchita Chavan i/b. India Law LLP, Advocates, for the Applicant Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 18.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State. 2. The present Application seeks quashing of the FIR No. 354 of 2021 dated 16.06.2021 filed by the First Informant/Complainant for cheating and under Sections 4 & 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”) against the Applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant persuades the Court to consider the parties having arrived at a settlement namely MOU dated 18.01.2022, copy of which is appended at page No. 24 (Exh.B) to the Petition. I have perused the same with the able assistance of learned Anand 1 of 7 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.22 21:24:22 +0530 68. APL 254-2026.doc Counsel for the Applicant. By virtue of the said MOU, the entire amount which was received from the Complainant has been paid back to the Complainant and over and above that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has been paid. It is seen that there are three Accused persons in the present matter. Accused No. 2 has expired. Accused No. 3 is before the Court. He is the son of Accused No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant draws my attention to the Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the MOU appended at Exh. B which prima facie states that the Complainant/First Informant has agreed to file Affidavit and give statement before the concerned Police Station in C. R. No. 354 of 2021 which is the present C.R. to have withdrawn all his grievances unconditionally against the Accused Nos. 2 & 3 qua the subject flat in question namely B/702. The said MOU records that he has received Rs.26,00,000/- and the declaration is so given by him wherein once again in Clause 3 of the said declaration at page No. 28, he clarifies that he undertakes not to proceed with any Criminal, Civil or other proceedings against the Accused Nos. 2 & 3. 4. In that view of the matter, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 decided on 10.04.2017, partial quashing is permissible. Anand 2 of 7 68. APL 254-2026.doc 5. The Criminal Application stands allowed. 6. The FIR qua the Applicant before me, who is arraigned as Accused No. 3 stands quashed and set aside. 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 has further asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 68. APL 254-2026.doc 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 Anand 4 of 7 68. APL 254-2026.doc 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. 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 Anand 5 of 7 68. APL 254-2026.doc 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. 12. 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 invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant, should pay costs. Hence, Applicant is 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 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 Anand 6 of 7 68. APL 254-2026.doc 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 Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:- “a) Quash and set aside the FIR bearing No. 354 of 2021 dated 16.06.2021 registered under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the MOFA registered with Nayanagar Police Station, the Final report form/chargesheet bearing No. 164 of 2022 and all proceedings arising therefrom, qua the Applicant herein, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as recorded in writing in the MoU dated 18.01.2022.” 14. List the Criminal Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 05.10.2026. 15. Advocate for the Applicant shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Applicant 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. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7