171.APL.1911.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1911 OF 2026 Raghunath Sopanrao Dabhade And Ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar, Advocate i/by Mr. Abhishek Ulhas Arote for Applicant.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No.1. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.1. 2. The parties have reconciled their disputes which had arisen on account of certain amounts which were due and payable to the Complainant which were not returned by the Applicants. It is seen that the Complainant demanded the said amounts in the business establishment namely Chinese Hotel of the Applicants and had committed a ruckus due to which the Applicants got incensed and picked up a stick lying nearby and inflicted a blow on the head of the head and the arm of the Complainant which led to the filing of the offense in question. Both the parties are known to each other and are friends and have business relationship. Infact after the incident had occurred, the Applicant himself took the Complainant to the took the 1 of 7 171.APL.1911.2026.doc Complainant for medical treatment. Both the parties have approached the court for quashing the FIR since they interested to pursue respective live and propositions. Parties don’t have any antecedents and are infact, neighbors. 3. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to consider the request made by the parties for quashing. Affidavit of consent of the Complainant dated 08.06.2026 is filed and taken on record wherein the Complainant has expressed no objection for quashing on his own solemn affirmation. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, and notwithstanding the injury which has occurred which was not pre- mediated and happened on the spur of the moment in view of the scuffle that ensued between the parties, I am inclined to accept the request for quashing and allow the Petition. 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 2 of 7 171.APL.1911.2026.doc 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 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 171.APL.1911.2026.doc 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 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 7 171.APL.1911.2026.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 Applicant for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs. Hence, Applicants 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 7 171.APL.1911.2026.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 2 weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicants through his learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 10. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. At the request of parties, it is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ which read thus:- “a) Invoke the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and quash and set aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 713 of 2025, registered on 17.12.2025 with Wagholi Police station, Pune City under section 118(2), 3(5), 351(2),352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Chargesheet bearing no. 65 of 2026, filed on 02.03.2026 before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court Room No. 06, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, under the said sections, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper” 11. Registry directed to accept the vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. Siddharth Karia on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 / Complainant within a period of four weeks from today. 12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding 6 of 7 171.APL.1911.2026.doc payment of costs on 23rd October 2026. 13. Advocate in Application for Applicants shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date for compliance. If learned Advocate for Applicants 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 Applicants/parties to Application. 14. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.10.10 13:00:04 +0530