69. APL 1439-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026 Kailas Anandrao Atole & ors. .Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2026 Charudatta Bhagwantrao Nandere & anr. .Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents Mr. Sachin B. Thorat a/w. Mr. Vijay B. Kurhade, Ms. Pranali Daware i/b. Mr. Yogesh Thorat, Advocates, for the Applicants in Cri. Appln. No. 1439 of 2026 and for the Petitioners in W. P. No. 4359 of 2026 Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Mahesh Thite, PSI, Baner Police Station, Pune present CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 18.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Thorat, learned Counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1- State. 2. The parties have settled their dispute. They are all family members. The dispute had arisen in view of the Will. Compromise Anand 1 of 8 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.30 12:39:58 +0530 69. APL 1439-2026.doc pursis is filed before the Civil Court. The parties had already acted upon the same. They desire to quash the present Criminal proceeding by consent quashing. After hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates and in fact, the parties, who are all present before the me, the present Petition deserves to be allowed so that the parties can now live their life in future without the hindrance of the Criminal prosecution or proceeding. Since there are two proceedings, two different Consent Affidavits have been filed by the Complainant, who is common. The Consent Affidavits are dated 11.09.2026. They are taken on record. I have interacted with the Complainant. He affirms the contents of the same. 3. In that view of the matter, the Application and the Petition stand 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 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 Anand 2 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc 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 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 Anand 4 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc 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 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 Applicants and the Petitioners, for their Anand 5 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now all the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants and the Petitioners, should pay costs. Hence, Applicants and Petitioners are both directed to pay combined costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 12,500/- each in the two matters) 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 Applicants and the Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 10. In view of the above matter, the present Application and the Petition deserve to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. They are so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘A’ and Anand 6 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc ‘A-1’ and ‘B’ and ‘B-1’ CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026 “A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and may be pleased to quash the FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 registered with the Baner Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A-1) Be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet filed in the said FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 before the Ld. 2nd Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Pune as well as quash the Criminal Proceedings bearing No. Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 3592 of 2026 arising out of said C. R. and pending before the Ld. 2nd Jt. C.J.J.D. and J. M. F. C. Pune.” WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2026 “B) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and QUASH AND SET ASIDE FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 registered with the Baner Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as the present Petitioners are concerned. B-1) Be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet filed in the said FIR bearing C. R. No. 189 of 2026 before the Ld. 2nd Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Pune as well as quash the Criminal Proceedings bearing No. Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 3592 of 2026 arising out of said C. R. and pending before the Ld. 2nd Jt. C.J.J.D. and J. M. F. C. Pune.” 11. List the Criminal Application and Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 05.10.2026. 12. Advocate for the Petitioners and Applicants shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioners and Applicants on the Anand 7 of 8 69. APL 1439-2026.doc 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 Petitioners and the Applicants. 13. Criminal Application and Writ Petition are allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 8 of 8