76.WP.3465.2026.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.3465 OF 2026 Murtaz Hasan Ali Netterwala .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Hitesh Yadav a/w. Mr. Pavan S. Ghatkar, Advocates for Petitioner.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Mufaddal Zakiruddin, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  PSI – Nilesh T. More, Pydhonie Police Station. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Zakiruddin, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) in connection with First Information Report No.341 of 2025 registered with Pydhonie Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. Parties are before Court and reconciled their disputes and are before the Court for consent quashing. Consent terms have been 1 of 7 76.WP.3465.2026.doc executed between the parties on 01.04.2026, copy of which is appended at Exhibit - C, page No.125 whereas Affidavit of Consent of the Complainant dated 25.04.2026 is appended at Exhibit - D, page 194. I have perused both the documents. 4. The parties are before the Court. I have interacted with them in Court and they both persuade the Court to quash the criminal proceedings in view of the settlement arrived at between them due to intervention of the elders of the community. Considering the lis between the parties which is only a year old and the parties having reconciled their dispute, it would be in the fitness of things if the criminal proceedings are quashed and both the parties are allowed to lead their normal lives without the ignominy of the criminal proceedings looming large on them. 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 2 of 7 76.WP.3465.2026.doc 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. 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 76.WP.3465.2026.doc 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 matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle. 4 of 7 76.WP.3465.2026.doc 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 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.1,00,000/- to Fadak Welfare Foundation which caters to the needs and necessities of windows and orphans. The details of the Charitable Organization are as under:- 5 of 7 76.WP.3465.2026.doc Name of Trust : Fadak Welfare Foundation Name of Bank: RBL Bank Limited Name of Branch: Crawford Market Branch Account Number: 409002513578 IFSC Code: RATN0000193 11. Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocates agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the above charity within 2 weeks from today. 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 clauses ‘a and c’ which read thus:- “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSs) 2023; thereby quash and set aside the FIR No.341 of 2025 registered at Pydhonie Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) Act 2023 together with all proceedings arising therefrom, in view of the Consent Terms recorded in Exhibit ‘’ and the Consent Affidavit annexed as Exhibit ‘’. b) … c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant stay to all further proceedings before the Hon’ble 2nd Court Of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, At Mazgaon, Mumbai in relation to FIR No.341 of 2025 registered at Pydhonie Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS) Act 2023; be stayed; 6 of 7 76.WP.3465.2026.doc 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 the Advocate 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. ] 7 of 7 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.04 11:09:34 +0530