40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4403 OF 2026 Olympic Decor LLP & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Angeline Rodrigues, Advocate for Petitioners  Mr. Sukanta B. Karmakar, APP for State  Mr. Pradip J. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2  Ms. Prerna Bankar, PSI, MIDC Police Station, Mumbai ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Ms. Rodrigues, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for State and Mr. Jaiswal, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Present Petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom. 3. Parties have reconciled their dispute and have prayed for quashing by consent. Parties are in relationship rather business relationship but due to certain business conflicts, the complaint came to be filed for publishing and airing the memes, reels and videos on social media platforms by the Petitioners. 1 of 7 40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt 4. Consent affidavit dated 03.09.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2 is appended at page No. 43 onwards of the Petition, inter alia, stating that settlement has arrived voluntarily between the parties without any coercion, undue influence or pressure and Complainant has no objection for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 5. Parties are present before the Court. They have been identified by their respective Advocates. I have interacted with them. They persuade the Court to quash the criminal proceedings. 6. In view of the request made by the parties so that ignominy of the present criminal proceedings should not affect their further business prospects, I am inclined to consider the request made and allow the present Petition by consent quashing. 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 2 of 7 40. CRI WP-4403-26.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. 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 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 40. CRI WP-4403-26.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”. 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 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 40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt 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 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 Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for their actions resulting in invocation of criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- each towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical 5 of 7 40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt 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. 13. Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 through their Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today. 14. 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 read thus:- “(a). That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside FIR No. 775 of 2025 under Section 318(3) & Section 3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 registered with Respondent i.e. MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, in the interest of justice and equity and also in the interest of principles of natural justice." 15. List the Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 12th October, 2026. 6 of 7 40. CRI WP-4403-26.odt 16. Learned Advocate for Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 shall remain present and show compliance on the returnable date for compliance failing which this Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order. 17. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.28 20:38:37 +0530