78.WP.3808.2026.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.3808 OF 2026 Bhupat Ravjibhai Lukhi .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Sameer D. Hatle, Advocate for Petitioner.  Mr. Amit Munde, APP for Respondent No.1.  Mr. Devendra Tilani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  PSI – Chandu Patil, Kashimira Police Station. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Hatle, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Munde, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Tilani, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R.No.442 of 2017 registered with Kashimira Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3(2)(C) and Section 3(2)(F) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. 3. Lis between the parties with regard to possession of flat premises which has already been handed over to the Complainant and 1 of 6 78.WP.3808.2026.doc the dispute does not prevails. Both the parties are before the Court for consent quashing and persuade the Court to allow the Petition. 4. The Consent Affidavit of the original Complainant dated 15.07.2026 is taken on record. I have perused the same. The Complainant is present online and she confirms and asserts that the Affidavit has been given by her. 5. Learned APP for the State informs the Court that C-summary Report has also been filed in the present case. 6. 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. 2 of 6 78.WP.3808.2026.doc 7. 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. 8. 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”. 9. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 6 78.WP.3808.2026.doc 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. 10. 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 4 of 6 78.WP.3808.2026.doc 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. 11. 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 should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner, is directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- 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 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 5 of 6 78.WP.3808.2026.doc present in Court and through the learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 12. 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 ‘ 1’ which read thus:- “1. The Petitioners by way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for a Writ of Mandamus to quash and set aside the FIR No. 442 of 2017 registered with Kashmira Police Station.” 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 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. ] 6 of 6 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.03 18:04:29 +0530