23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1484 OF 2026 Shivshankar Jagannath Mourya @ Shivaji Mourya .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Sandeep Mishra a/w Ms. Madhura Mulay, Advocates for Applicant  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State  Ms. Nisha Chavan, API, Mumbra Police Station ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP for State. 2. Present Application is filed under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short "BNSS") for quashing the chargesheet No. I-32 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026 in connection with FIR / CR No. 223 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 filed at Mumbra Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 1 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt 3. Applicant is arrayed as accused in the said FIR by Respondent No. 3 – complainant. Respondent No. 3 is the tax consultant. Respondent No. 3 invested certain amounts with the Applicant at his behest on promising very high returns to investment in Bitcoin on the basis of stories and footings on YouTube. According to the complainant, he deposited Rs. 3 Lakh with the Applicant. However, the prosecution has come up with the figure of Rs. 8.66 Lakh. 4. On the previous occasion, Mr. Mishra would persuade me to consider quashing of the complaint on the ground that the complainant had received his entire amount in one stroke by online transfer. The complainant despite having been served is not present in Court. Hence, this Court on 14.08.2026 passed the following order:- "1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent. 2. Prosecution is directed to take cognizance of Affidavit appended at page No.144 and take appropriate instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer and apprise the Court on the next adjourned date and if so require file Affidavit-in-Reply. 3. Mr. Mishra submits that by virtue of the said Affidavit, Complainant has stated that he has received his entire amount by way of online transfer and therefore has no further complaint against Applicant. 4. Hence, issue notice to Respondents. Learned APP enters appearance and waives service on behalf of Respondent No.1 – State. 5. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Applicant is directed to serve the Respondents a copy of this order and Application and inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on the next adjourned date. 6. Stand over to 28th August, 2026." 2 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt 5. Today when the matter is called out for compliance, learned APP places on record police report dated 30.08.2026 which is filed after investigation with the complainant who informed the Police Authorities that settlement is arrived between the Applicant and complainant and complainant does not have any complaint whatsoever with the Applicant. Complainant has informed the Police Authorities that since he is out of station, he cannot personally come and recorded his consent and no-objection for having received monies and will come within 8-10 days to the Police Station for recording statement. I have perused the said report. Prima facie, I do not have any reason to disbelieve the same. I direct the learned APP to ensure that the statement of the complainant is recorded as informed by him and same is filed on record of the present Application. 6. In view of the above and the report filed by the concerned Police Authorities dated 30.08.2026, there can be no impediment in allowing the present Application as prayed for by the Applicant. 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 3 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt 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 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 5 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt 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. 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 the Applicant for his actions resulting in the complaint invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties 6 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant should pay costs. Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under:- Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra Account Number: 60434381304 7 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt IFSC Code: MAHB0002075 MICR Code: 423014102 Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon. Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik, Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra, Mobile No.: +91 8208525304. 14. In view of the above matter, the present Applicant 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) This Hon'ble Court may be please to call for the records and proceeding in respect of charge sheet no. I-32 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026 in connection with F.I.R/C.R. No. 223 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 filed at Mumbra Police Station, Thane, against the present applicant and after examining the legality and propriety thereof, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet no. I-32 of 2025 dated 29.01.2026 in connection with F.I.R/C.R. No. 223 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025 filed at Mumbra Police Station, Thane, against the applicant. 15. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 15.09.2026. 16. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Applicant on the returnable date for compliance. If he does not remain present and there is non-compliance 8 of 9 23. CRI APL-1484-26.odt of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order, which shall be noted by the Applicant. 17. Application is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 9 of 9 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.01 14:55:51 +0530