5-APL-1508-26.doc rsk IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION (L) NO.1508 OF 2026 Suhas Kasturchand Shah And Ors .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Kushal Mor a/w. Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar i/b Mr. Tushar C. Nirbhavne for Applicants.  Mr. Yogesh Nakhawa, APP for Respondent-State.  Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh for Respondent No. 2. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kushal Mor, learned counsel for Applicants, Mr. Yogesh Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent-State and Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh for Respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application filed for quashing by consent of the parties. The applicants are factory occupier, production supervisor and safety engineer, who are arraigned as accused in the present case. The incident which occurred in the factory led to death of one worker and injuries to two others. Prima facie, the record of the proceedings shows that the factory owner has taken care of the entire medical bills and has also paid the ex gratia payment under the relevant statutory provisions to the concerned parties/dependents. The present 1 of 8 RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Date: 2026.09.01 15:25:44 +0530 5-APL-1508-26.doc proceedings emanate from complaint filed by one of the injured persons who is duly represented by Mr. Deshmukh. Mr.Deshmukh in all fairness, at the outset draws the Court’s attention to the affidavit of consent dated filed by respondent No.2 giving his consent to quash the present FIR. I have perused the same. He has given his consent unequivocally. 3. Affidavit dated 20.07.2026 of the Complainant-Respondent No.2 is filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on record. The contents of the said Affidavit prima facie show that the entire dispute and settlement/ issue now stands resolved and hence they now want to put an end to the criminal proceedings. 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 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 2 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 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 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. 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 consent, in my opinion, can be considered by Court which can impose costs on the parties, especially so in matters coming before the Court 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 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. 8. Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs 4 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 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. From reading of the papers and facts placed before me, it is prima facie seen that the cause of action was due to an accident which cannot be attributed to anybody’s dereliction insofar as the operations in the factory is concerned. Needless to state that all other statutory proceedings under the Factories Act qua the concerned incident in question and the victims have already been undertaken, proceeded with and taken to their logical end. The issue with regard to FIR bearing No.444 of 2022 dated 21 December 2022 has now been said to be resolved and quashed by consent of the parties. I find no reason as to why the present application should not be allowed. 5 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 10. The affidavit of Respondent No.2 is on record dated 20.07.2026. The application for quashing of FIR stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) , which reads thus: “a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Application and that FIR No. 0444/2022 dated 21 December 2022, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Thane, under Section 304-A, 337 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any possible subsequent proceedings and trial court proceedings arising out of and in connection with the present FIR, including but not limited to any process issue order, summons and chargesheet, be quashed and set aside, on such terms and conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;” 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Applicants for their actions resulting in the complaint 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.20,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha. All Applicants are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 12. 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 6 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 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 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. 13. Needless to state that after filing of the petition, the charge-sheet has been filed. The said chargesheet bearing No.0444/2026 and all consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside. 14. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 11 September 2026. 7 of 8 5-APL-1508-26.doc 15. Advocates for Applicants in Application shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of all Applicants on the returnable date for compliance. If they do 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. 16. Application is allowed and disposed. rsk [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 8 of 8