12.WP.4109.2026.doc Anand 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. 4109 OF 2026 Snehal Nitin Shinde & anr. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Prajakta N. Deshmukh a/w. Ms. Jayashree Tamboli, Advocates for Petitioners.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State. 2. The Petition seeks consent quashing. It emanates from an FIR lodged for cheating by the Respondent No. 2 qua an Agreement for Sale under which substantial amounts were paid to the tune of Rs.1.5/- Crores in installments but since the Agreement was not honoured, the complaint came to be filed. The parties have reconciled their disputes and are persuading the Court to put an end to the Criminal proceeding. Appended at Exh. B page 32 in the Affidavit- Cum-Consent dated 04.08.2026 of Respondent No. 2 (First Informant) which prima facie lists the return of the amounts received by the said Respondent No. 2. In paragraphs 19 & 20 of the said Affidavit of 1 of 6 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.03 20:16:38 +0530 12.WP.4109.2026.doc Respondent No. 2 has stated as under :- “19. I therefore state, declare and confirm that I have no objection whatsoever if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to quash and set aside C. R. No. 0123 of 2026 registered with Sanpada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in its entirety and against all the accused persons named therein, namely Mr. Nitin Sudhir Shinde, Mrs. Snehal Nitin Shinde and Mrs. Sujata Sudhir Shinde, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 20. I say that the aforesaid consent and no-objection is being given by me voluntarily, consciously and after fully understanding the nature and consequences of the settlement as well as the effect of quashing the criminal proceedings. There is no force, fraud, coercion, pressure, threat, inducement or undue influence upon me from the Applicants/Accused or from any other person for giving the present consent.” 3. In view of the above, as the parties having reconciled their disputes, I am inclined to consider the request made by the parties for consent quashing and quash the Criminal proceedings. 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 2 of 6 12.WP.4109.2026.doc 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 6 12.WP.4109.2026.doc by “consent quashing”. 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 4 of 6 12.WP.4109.2026.doc 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. 9. 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.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 5 of 6 12.WP.4109.2026.doc 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. All Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount collectively to the above charity as directed within a period of two weeks. 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 ‘b’ which read thus:- “b) quash and set aside C. R. No. 0123 of 2026 registered with Sanpada Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in its entirety and qua all the accused persons named therein, namely Accused No.1 Mr. Nitin Sudhir Shinde, Accused No.2 Mrs. Snehal Nitin Shinde and Accused No.3 Mrs. Sujata Sudhir Shinde, together with all proceedings arising therefrom in view of the voluntary and compressive settlement arrived at between the parties.’ 11. List the Writ Petition for compliance of this order on 23rd September 2026. 12. Advocates for Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Petitioners on the returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 Petitioners/parties to Petitions. 13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6