76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2328 OF 2026 Sreejit Rameshan .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Adhik Kadam, Advocate for Petitioner  Mr. Imran Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2  S.S. Gore, API, Dehu Road Police Station ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Present Petition is filed under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for quashing of FIR bearing No. CR No. 395 of 2025 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, Pune. 3. Parties knew each other. The charge against the Petitioner is for criminal intimidation under the Atrocities Act. Gist of reasons and the incidents are stated in paragraph No. 2 of the Petition. Both the parties are present before the court. I have interacted with Respondent No. 2 on the mobile phone of his Advocate through a video call. He has given me all the details. He confirms the filing of the consent affidavit 1 of 6 76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt dated 30.08.2026. It is taken on record. I have perused the same. Since the lis between the parties is only in regard to criminal intimidation, and insofar as the issue of atrocities is concerned, the complainant has informed that family members from both sides have reconciled and intervened and desire to put an end to the dispute, in view thereof, there can no impediment in allowing the present Petition. 4. 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 76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt 5. 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. 6. 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”. 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 6 76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt 7. 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. 8. Another aspect to consider for imposing costs is that it curbs the growing trend of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints 4 of 6 76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt (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. 9. 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, Petitioners 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, 5 of 6 76. CRI WP-2328-26.odt 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 Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 10. 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) Quash and set aside FIR bearing C.R. No. 395 of 2025 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, Pune; (b) Quash Chargesheet in Special Case No. 5 of 2026 pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Maval, Pune. " 11. List the Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 16th September 2026. 12. 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 the Petition. 13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.03 18:01:57 +0530