8.WP.3886.2026.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. 3886 OF 2026 Vijayendra Girish Shastri .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Dormaan J. Dalal a/w. Shirley Mody and Mr. Shreyas Deore, Advocates for Petitioner.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Irvin D’Souza a/w. Mr. Omkar Wani and Mr. Sachin Prithviraj Kharat, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.  Ms. Gayatri Amar Khandagale, Respondent No.3 is present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Dalal, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. D’Souza, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Present Writ Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings in S.C.C. No.13465 of 2026 pending on the file of the 13th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune arising out of First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) No. 0523 of 2025 registered with Sahakar Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and 1 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc Sections 184, 134, 119 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is a case of consent quashing between the parties. 3. Mr. Dalal, learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is arrayed as accused in the criminal proceedings by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.3 is the Power of Attorney holder and sister of Respondent No.2 who instituted proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune seeking compensation in respect of injuries allegedly sustained by him in an accident. 3.1. He would submit that during the pendency of the said proceedings, parties have amicably resolved all their disputes in terms of terms of settlement dated 23.06.2026. He would submit and draw Court’s attention to the terms of settlement appended at Exhibit 'B' and the subsequent order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune disposing of the MACP Proceeding No.217 of 2026 as settled in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. 3.2. He would submit that the said compromise records payment of an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) out of which Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) was agreed to be handed over to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the date of passing of the order before the Tribunal. He would submit that the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) is now paid to Respondent 2 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc Nos.2 and 3 by Demand Draft No.3848 dated 03.08.2026 as agreed, original of which is handed over to Respondent No.3 present in Court and copy of which is placed on record and for immediate reference, the same is scanned and reproduced below:- 4. In that view of the matter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed Affidavit dated 20.08.2026 which is appended at Exhibit 'B' of the Petition. In the said Affidavit, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated 3 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc that pursuant to terms of settlement dated 23.06.2026, dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and they do not have any grievances or any further claim against the Petitioner and they do not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings as also any other proceedings against the Petitioner qua the accident in question. The said statement is made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said Affidavit. I have perused the same. Respondent No.3 is present in Court. I have interacted with her through Advocate in the Court. The Demand Draft of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) has been handed over to Respondent No.3 and she informs the Court that they have no grievances whatsoever and agree for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 5. 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 4 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.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. 6. 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. 7. 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 5 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc by “consent quashing”. 8. 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. 6 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc 9. 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. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his actions resulting in the complaint invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees Only) to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 7 of 8 8.WP.3886.2026.doc 11. In view of the above matter, the present Petition 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] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings being S.C.C. No. 13465 of 2026 pending on the file of the 13th Joint Civil Judge J.D. and JMFC Pune arising out of F.I.R. bearing No. 0523 of 2025 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 281 and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 184, 134, 119 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the interest of justice.” 12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 10th September 2026. 13. Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Petitioner 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 Petitioner/parties in Petition. 14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 8 of 8 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01 14:49:19 +0530