72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2026 Shweta Dilip Bhosale .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2026 Prashant Hindurao Padalkar .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Bakul Bhosale a/w Mr. Rohan Patil, Advocates for Petitioner in WP No. 2142 of 2026  Mr. Dadhichi Mhaispurkar i/by Mr. Rishikesh Sharad Pawaskar, Advocates for Petitioner in WP No. 2143/2026  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for State ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 2142 of 2026 is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR registered at Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 504 & 506 of the IPC and subsequent chargesheet dated 27.05.2023. 1 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt 3. Writ Petition No. 2143 of 2026 is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR registered vide C.R. No. 9 of 2023 with Mandwa Sagari Police Station and subsequent chargesheet. 4. These are the matters of cross-complaints between parties arising out of breach of trust and trespass. Both Petitioners have filed consent affidavits dated 29.04.2026 and 30.04.2026, which are taken on record in both the Petitions. I have perused the same. The parties are present in the Court. I have interacted with them. Considering what has happened and transpired and what is stated in the consent affidavits, both the Petitions deserve to be allowed since the parties desire to move on in life. 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 2 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt 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”. 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 4 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt 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 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 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, both Petitioners in the two Writ Petitions are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each towards the corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s 5 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt 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. Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 11. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) in both the Petitions which read thus:- WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2026 “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings registered vide C.R. No. 80 of 2023 registered at Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for an offence punishable u/s 452, 504 & 506 of the IPC. (b) That this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to quash the subsequent chargesheet filed on 27.5.2023 and further proceedings on the file of Learned J.M.F.C. 1st Court Panvel vide R.C.C. No. 746 of 2023." 6 of 7 72. CRI WP-2142-26 & 2143-26.odt WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2026 “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings registered at Mandwa Sagari Police Station vide C.R. No. 9 of 2023 for an offence punishable u/s 376, 376 (2) (n), 417, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC r.w. 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (w) (i) (ii), 3 (2) (V), 3 (2) (VA), 3 (2) (VII) of the S.C.S.T (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. 1989 as amended by Act of 2015; (b) That this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to quash the subsequent chargesheet filed on 11.04.2023 and further proceedings on the file of Learned Special Judge / Sessions Judge Raigad, Alibag in Special Case No. 9 2023." 12. List the Petitions for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 16th September, 2026. 13. Advocates for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of 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 to both Petitions. 14. Writ Petitions is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.03 18:00:20 +0530