80.WP.2467.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2467 OF 2026 Mohammed Kaif Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2469 OF 2026 Abdul Gani Khan and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Afreen Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in both Writ Petitions.  Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Ruhi Singh, Advocate i/by Arihant Associate for Respondent No.2.  PSI – B.L. Mahagaonkar, RAK Marg Police Station present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions; Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is a group of two Writ Petitions which are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026 is listed at Sr. No.80 today. Insofar as Criminal Writ Petition 1 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc No.2469 of 2026 is concerned, learned Advocates inform the Court that the matter was listed on Saturday, but the same has now been adjourned to tomorrow. By consent of the parties, Criminal Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026 is taken on board forthwith. 3. There are six Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026, whereas there are eight Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026. The parties are the Complainants in their respective Petitions. Thus, this is a case of cross-complaints by the parties against each other. The charge against the parties is for causing grievous hurt. The incident in question arose on account of a parking dispute between the parties residing in Pathan Chawl compound in Wadala, Mumbai. 4. Most of the Petitioners are young offenders and therefore both the learned Advocates persuade the Court to consider allowing the present Petitions so that the Petitioners can lead meaningful and good lives in society without the ignominy of a pending criminal proceeding of this nature. 5. Both the learned Advocates jointly submit that the incident in question occurred due to a parking dispute involving motorcycles between the parties and unfortunately escalated to such an extent that the parties started attacking each other with whatever came into their hands. The weapons in question were an iron rod and bamboo sticks which were lying around. I have perused the papers with the able 2 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc assistance of the learned Advocates and the learned APP. I am inclined to accept the submissions made by both the learned Advocates for the Petitioners in both the Criminal Writ Petitions and dispose of the same. 6. The Court should adequately give a chance to young offenders who, on the spur of the moment, sometimes get caught in the crosswinds of such an unfortunate incident which, unfortunately, escalated into a full-blown fight. All the Petitioners are present before the Court. I have interacted with all the Petitioners who are present in Court. Almost all the Petitioners are young, save and except one or two of them who appear to be elderly and may have intervened to de- escalate the fight between the two groups. 7. What I find is that in such a situation, the Court has to step in. Hence, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocates and allow both the Criminal Writ Petitions and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioners in question. 8. 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 3 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 4 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc 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”. 11. 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 5 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle. 12. 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. 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should pay costs. Hence, 6 Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026 and 8 Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026 are directed to pay costs of 6 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) each to A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special School 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. All Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 14. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.2467 of 2026 deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- “a. Quash and set aside FIR No. 73/2026 registered with RAK Marg Police Station, Mumbai and chargeasheet against all accused.” 15. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.2469 of 2026 deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- “a. Quash and set aside FIR No. 73/2026 registered with RAK Marg Police Station, Mumbai and chargeasheet against all 7 of 8 80.WP.2467.2026.doc accused.” 16. It is clarified that C.C. Nos.853/PW/2026 and 855/PW/20263 in both the aforesaid proceedings are also quashed and set aside. 17. List both the Writ Petitions for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 15th September 2026. Advocates in both Petitions for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners 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 Petitioners/parties in both Petitions. 18. Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 8 of 8 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01 10:54:00 +0530