77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2026 Rahul Ashok Kumar Ajmani .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Jyoti Chavan a/w Mr. Akshay Tayade, Advocates for Petitioner  Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for State  Mr. Dharmesh Joshi i/by T.D. Joshi & Associates, Advocates for Respondent No. 2  Mr. Aniket Tambe - Respondent No. 2 present through VC  Ms. Ashwini More, PSI, Kherwadi Police Station ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Palkar, learned APP for State and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. Present Petition is filed under Section 528 under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for quashing FIR bearing No. 96 of 2026 registered with Kherwadi Police Station. 3. Dispute in the present case has occurred due to a motor car accident which ultimately led to the filing of FIR under under the extant provisions of BNS. Considering that both the Petitioner and the 1 of 7 77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt Respondent No. 2 - complainant are the affected persons and now wish to reconcile their differences and opinions, they have prayed to the Court to consider the present petition for consent quashing. 4. Respondent No. 2 has filed consent affidavit dated 28.06.2026 wherein he has submitted that due to the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no claim whatsoever and he has no objection for quashing the FIR. Said affidavit is taken on record. I have interacted with both the parties. Petitioner is present before the Court. Respondent No. 2 has appeared through VC. In view thereof, there can be no impediment in allowing the petition since the parties have no grievances and should be allowed to carry on with their respective lives. 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 77. CRI WP-2335-26.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 77. CRI WP-2335-26.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 77. CRI WP-2335-26.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 Petitioner for his action 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. 25,000/- towards the corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana’s J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, a Special 5 of 7 77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt 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. 11. 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 ‘b’ which read thus:- “(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate Order and quash the FIR bearing No. 0096 of 2026 dated 28.02.2026. registered with Kherwadi Police Station. for offences punishable under Section 281,125,324(4) of BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita) Act 2023. r/w 184, 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. against the Petitioner on any terms and Conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and the Petitioner be acquitted. 12. It is further clarified that subsequent case i.e. PS/2645/2026 is also quahsed. 13. List the Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 16th September 2026. 6 of 7 77. CRI WP-2335-26.odt 14. Advocate for Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Petitioner on the returnable date for compliance. If does not 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. 15. Writ Petition 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 18:03:20 +0530