86.WP.892.2026.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. 892 OF 2026 Sachinam Changya Guruswamy @ Sanjay @ Sanjeeva Shetty @ Sanju Shetty .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondent ....................  Ms. Swarali Joglekar a/w. Ms. Zehraa C., Advocates for Petitioner.  Mr. Vijaykumar Dhotre, Advocate i/b Mr. Ajay Bhise for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.  Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for Respondent – State.  Ms. Minakshi A. Nale, PSI, MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai – 01 present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Joglekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Dhotre, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and Ms. Newton, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. This Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) by the parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of brevity. 1 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc 3. Complainant as well as two injured victims have filed their Consent Affidavits in respect of quashing of an FIR registered way back in the year 1996. 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that trial in the said proceeding has already culminated with acquittal of the other three accused. She would submit that in view of confusion in identification of the present Petitioner and his name, in so far as the present Petitioner is concerned, the said proceeding proceeded before the Trial Court without he being a party thereto. 5. The Complainant and the injured victims having filed their Consent Affidavits and with the lapse of time of approximately more than 30 years, the parties have requested the Court to put a quietus to the issue as all parties have moved on in life. I am of the opinion that no purpose whatsoever would be served in keeping the said proceeding alive any further qua the Applicant. 6. I am inclined to therefore allow the present Writ Petition on accepting the Consent Affidavits of the Complainant and the two injured victims placed before me on record. The Affidavits are dated 04.03.2026. They are taken on record. 7. 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 2 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc 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. 8. 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. 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc 9. 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”. 10. 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, 4 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc 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. 11. 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. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his actions resulting in 5 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc 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.25,000/- 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 within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. 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’ which read thus:- “(a) Quash the Sessions Case No. 1093 of 2001 arising out of the FIR registered vide C. R. No. 428/1996 of M.R.A. Marg Police Station pending before the Lrd. Addl Sessions Court at Mumbai;” 14. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding 6 of 7 86.WP.892.2026.doc payment of costs on 15th September 2026. 15. Advocate 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. 16. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.03 18:29:25 +0530