77.WP.3706.2026.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.3706 OF 2026 Raiees Yasin Lashkaria and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Rehan H. Ghojaria, Advocates i/by Diamondwala & Co. for Petitioners.  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Harsh Ramchandani a/w. Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocates i/by Naina Jain for Respondent No.3.  API – Saptale, EOW, Mumbai. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State; Mr. Ramchandani, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2. This is Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with First Information Report No.371 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025 registered with Juhu Police Station, Mumbai and subsequently renumbered as C.R.No.45 of 2025 registered by Unit – 6 (General Cheating -4) EOW, Mumbai on 25.04.2025 under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 1 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.doc 3. Parties have reconciled their disputes is prima facie on the face of record is a commercial dispute to which incidentally this Court had an opportunity to pass a consent order which is appended at Exhibit – B, page No.73 to the Petition. 4. The Consent Affidavit of the Complainant - Company is placed before the Court, which is dated 18.07.2026. The extract of the resolution of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company on 13.08.2024 is appended thereto. Mr. Vinay Gujar, the Senior Manager of Credit Control Department is present in Court. He is the signatory and he has verified the Consent Affidavit on behalf of the Company. 5. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before the Court. I have interacted with them. They have been identified by their respective Advocates. Both the parties inform the Court that in view of the Consent Terms and more specifically the Consent Terms having been fructified, the criminal prosecution and proceedings be quashed and set aside and the parties be allowed to carry on with their life and business. I have perused the Consent Terms and the Consent Affidavit. 6. Ms. Newton, however, would persuade the Court to record the opposition of the prosecution that substantial investigation has been done in the present proceedings and charge-sheet has been filed. The learned Prosecutor may be right but in so far as the indictment of the Petitioners is concerned, it is prima facie seen that it is between 2 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.doc two private entities namely, the Petitioners on the one hand being a Construction Company whereas the Complainant being a Freight Company and there were substantial transactions between them which led to dispute and filing of criminal complaint. 7. In that view of the matter, the objections raised by Ms. Newton are noted by the Court but in view of the consent quashing request made by the Petitioners and the Complainant, I am inclined to accept the present Petition. 8. 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. 3 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.doc 9. 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. 10. 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”. 11. 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 4 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.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. 12. 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 5 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.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. 13. 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, Petitioners, are 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 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. 6 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.doc All Petitioners are present in Court and through the learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 14. 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 clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:- “(a) The Leave and License Agreement dated 23.08.2023 between Petitioner No. 1 (or its sister concern) and Cornerstone Enterprises has been declared irrevocably cancelled and terminated; (b) Cornerstone Enterprises has attorned to Respondent No.3 as the sole and lawful owner of the Said Property and shall execute a fresh Leave and License Agreement directly with the Respondent No.3 for the Ground Floor for a fixed term of twelve months commencing 1st January 2026 and expiring 5th December 2026.” 15. In so far as prayer clause No.(b) is concerned, Respondent No.3 will be read as Respondent No.2. If any accounts have been frozen by the prosecution belonging to the Petitioners the same are directed to be immediately released from freeze on the basis of a certified copy of this order downloaded from the High Court website. 16. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 16th September 2026. 17. Advocate in Petition for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the returnable date for compliance. If the Advocates not remain present and there is non- compliance of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of 7 of 8 77.WP.3706.2026.doc this order, which shall be noted by the Petitioners/parties to Petition. 18. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 8 of 8 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.03 18:00:28 +0530