180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4202 OF 2026 Jitendra Manohardas Thakker .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4718 OF 2026 Kashmira Rajendra Shah & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Ms. Priyanka Bhoite i/by Ms. Aditi Naikare, Advocates for Petitioner in WP 4202/26  Mr. Ramesh Soni i/by Ram & Co., Advocates for Petitioners in WP 4718/26  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for State  Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Petitioner in WP 4202/26; Mr. Soni, learned Advocate for Petitioners in WP 4718/26; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for State and Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Present Petitions are filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the FIR and the consequential proceedings, if any, arising therefrom. 1 of 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt 3. In these two Petitions, Petitioners are the accused persons. Complainant is the same. FIR is also same. 4. The dispute between the parties arising out of the sale deed dated 24.12.2020 in the Co-operative Housing Society stands reconciled and settled by virtue of an MOU dated 11.08.2026. I have seen the original MOU. Copy of the same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification by the Court. 5. Two consent affidavits dated 31.08.2026 are filed in the Petitions. Both are taken on record. Considering the settlement between the parties and the reconciliation between them, I am inclined to accept their request for consent quashing. 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 2 of 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt 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 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. 8. 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 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt 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”. 9. 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 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle. 10. 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. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs. Hence, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 5000/- per Petitioner) towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which 5 of 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt 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. 12. Petitioners through their Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today.. 13. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. They are so allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read thus:- “a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 0148/2026 dated 2nd June, 2026 registered with the Sarkar Wada Police Station, District-Nashik for the offences punishable U/s. 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and U/s. 318 (2), 336(2), 338, 336(2), 338, 336(3), 339, 61(2) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 against the Petitioner/s. 14. List the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 30th October, 2026. 6 of 7 180 & 260. CRI WP-4202-26 & 4718-26.odt 15. Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance 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 Petitioners. 16. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.10.13 11:52:07 +0530