P1. APL 1559-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1559 OF 2026 Naina Atul Rana .Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Rachita Dhuru i/b. Tamsin Monis, for the Applicants Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP, for the Respondent – State Mr. Satyajit Virnodkar, PSI, Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai present CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22.09.2026 P. C. 1. Mentioned. Not on board. 2. Heard Mr. Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State. 3. This matter is not on board today. However, it was supposed to be listed along with APL No. 1548 of 2026 (Sr. No. 37). The Applicants before me in both the matters are husband and wife. The lis emanates from the same cause of action. The subject is the same. The issue is the same. The order of the learned Magistrate is the same. Hence, Criminal Application No. 1559 of 2026 is taken up for hearing. It is mentioned before the Court though it is not on board, it is taken up for hearing Anand 1 of 4 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.29 10:53:36 +0530 P1. APL 1559-2026.doc forthwith in view of the order passed in Cri. Application No. 1548 of 2026. 4. The Application seeks quashing of the order dated 09.06.2026 by virtue of which notwithstanding “C” Summary Report filed by the police on the basis of the fair assessment of the evidence during investigation, however, the learned Magistrate has directed the complaint and the investigation to proceed in view of the fact that the Complainant is a Government servant. The lis in the matter is such that the parties had gone for rectification with regard to the Development Agreement in question. Once the police have found on investigation, that there is no element of breach of trust prima facie emanating from the documents, without assigning any reason whatsoever merely on the ground that the Complainant is a Government servant, the said order has been passed. The “C” Summary Report which has been filed is at page No. 30. I have perused the same. Substantial cognizance has been taken of the entire material and I prima facie do not find any reason to interfere therein. 5. In that view of the matter, the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai below Exh.1 in CC No. 2107/MISC/2025 is unsustainable as it is sans reasons, not on merits and therefore, it stands quashed & set aside. Anand 2 of 4 P1. APL 1559-2026.doc 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 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 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 4 P1. APL 1559-2026.doc 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 view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which read thus:- “a) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai (“the Learned Magistrate”), below Exh. 1 in C. C. No. 2108/MISC/2025 invoking this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to give effect to the provisions of the BNSS and to secure the ends of justice. b) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to accept the C-Summary Final Report filed by Goregaon Police Station in FIR No. 257 of 2023 qua the Applicants and discharge/release the Applicants from the proceedings in C. C. No. 2108/MISC/2025 or any proceedings arising out of it.” 9. The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 4 of 4