81.WP.4368.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4368 OF 2026 Hemang Jadavji Shah .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr. Munaf Virjee, Mr. Omkar Mulekar, Mr. Sakshi Joydand and Ms. Keral Mehta, Advocates i/by AMR Law for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Ashwin Thool a/w. Mr. Aditya Mehta, Ms. Shivani Garg, Mr. Manan Shah and Ms. Poornima Eapen, Advocates i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Respondent No.2. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Thool, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with C.R.No.53 of 2025 dated 14.05.2025 registered with EOW, Unit-5, G.C.-3, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 earlier being lodged as FIR bearing C.R.No.116 of 2025 with Malabar Hill Police Station. 1 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.doc 3. Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are both real brothers and they have reconciled and settled their dispute with regarding to the transactions relationship / investment, etc. The Complainant has filed Consent Affidavit dated 29.08.2026. I have perused the stated and what is stated therein has been confirmed by the Complainant who is present through Video Conferencing. Mr. Shah confirm the averments made in the Affidavit and consent for quashing the criminal proceedings. 4. Mr. Karmakar informs the Court that C-summary report has been filed. Nevertheless the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. 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 2 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.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 3 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.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. 9. Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs 4 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.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. 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 complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner/s, Applicant/s should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the Corpus of 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 5 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.doc 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. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the above charity. 11. In view of the above matter, the present Petition deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above so that the parties can lead their life without being involved in the present criminal case. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘ a and b’ which read thus:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.53 of 2025 Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, GC-3 Unit – 5 (originally FIR bearing C.R.No. 116 of 2025 lodged with Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai) for offences punishable u/ss. 316 (5) and 318 (4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and proceedings arising out of C.C.No.4462/MISC/2025 pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai registered against the Petitioner upon such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; b. As a consequence to prayer clause (a) above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the demat account of Great White Global Pvt. Ltd. Bearing Account No. 1201060003958029 with Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers Limited be defreezed.” 12. It is clarified that Demat account of the Company which has been frozen by the prosecution will be immediately released from any such attachment and the said account shall stand defreezed forthwith, 6 of 7 81.WP.4368.2026.doc on receipt of a server copy of the order downloaded from the Bombay High Court website by the Concerned authorities for the said Demat accounts. 13. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 16th September 2026. 14. Advocate in Petition 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 to Petition. 15. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.03 18:09:18 +0530