79.WP.2370.2026.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. 2370 OF 2026 Shadab Nawab Ali Shaikh and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Hitesh V. Jain, Advocate for Petitioners.  Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Alok Pandey, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  Mr. Yuvraj Khairnar, Colaba Police Station present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. In the present case, the Petitioners and Complainant had an unfortunate incident near Kala Ghoda, Mumbai while the Complainant was ushering vehicles for parking and the motorcycle handle accidentally brushed against the hand of the First Informant, which led to the incident in question and escalated into a full-blown fight. The incident occurred on 15.08.2023. 3. Parties have now reconciled their disputes and have persuaded the Court to allow them to carry on with their lives. Though 1 of 6 79.WP.2370.2026.doc initially the FIR was registered for causing simple hurt, it was subsequently converted into a case for grievous hurt. The Consent Affidavit of the Complainant dated 29.08.2024 is filed today. It is taken on record. The Complainant does not wish to pursue the matter any further and has given his unequivocal consent for quashing of the 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 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 1 1992 AIR 604 2 of 6 79.WP.2370.2026.doc 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 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 3 of 6 79.WP.2370.2026.doc 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 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 4 of 6 79.WP.2370.2026.doc 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. 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 Petitioner should pay costs. Hence, Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) 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 one week from the date of uploading of this order. Receipt of payment of costs shall be placed before the Court for 5 of 6 79.WP.2370.2026.doc compliance. 10. Considering that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without any premeditation or planning, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- “a. that the FIR No. 200 of 2023 registered by the Colaba Police Station at the instance of Krishnamohan Balram Pandey i.e. the Respondent No. 2 for the alleged offence committed u/s 326, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and the Police Warrant Case No. 264 of 2024 pending before the 8th Court of the Ld. Addl. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate At Esplanade, Mumbai Registered pursuant to filing of Chargesheet in FIR No. 200 of 2023 be quashed by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 11. It is further clarified that PWC No.264 of 2024 is also quashed and set aside. 12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 15th September 2026. 13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.01 10:12:32 +0530