WP.3993.2026.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. 3993 OF 2026 Mr. Venugopal @ Kiran Prabhuram Joshi .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. A.R. Gole, Advocate for Petitioners.  Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Mr. Dhanashree Bhate, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Talhar learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Bhate, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This Petition is filed under Section 482/528 of the CRPC/BNSS by 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. 3. Briefly stated, on 11.05.2024 at about 11:45 a.m. Respondent No.2 - Complainant allegedly received a call from one of 1 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc his employees informing him that Petitioner allegedly forceably entered into his office and broke a glass partition, hurled abuses and threats to his employees, caused damage to the articles in the office and took away a computer from the office. Applicant is one of the 5 partners of the firm of the Complainant. Complainant firm is engaged in construction business. Statements of employees have been recorded which confirm the above. In these circumstances, Respondent No.2 - Complainant filed FIR No.200 of 2024 with Achole Police Station, Nalasoppara East. 4. Affidavit dated 27.07.2026 of Respondent No.2 - Complainant is filed before me today. I have perused it and taken the same on record. The contents of the said Affidavit prima facie show that the entire dispute and settlement/issue between the partners now stands resolved and hence parties have approached this Court to put an end to the criminal proceedings launched by one of the partners. 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 2 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc 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. 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 further 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc 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”. 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 4 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc way such 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 actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, I am of the opinion in such circumstances, in view of the relationship of both parties and whatever may be their dispute, since the criminal law has been set into motion, 5 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc both parties being otherwise equally responsible should pay costs. Hence, I direct the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 both should pay costs of Rs.25,000/- each to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund bearing Account No.465010100008693 and IFSC Code No.UTIB0000465 in Axis Bank Limited. 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 ‘a’ which read thus:- “a. That the record and proceeding of FIR No.I-200 of 2024 dated 11/05/2024 registered with Achole Police Station, Chargesheet No.154/2024 and Reg.Criminal Case No.1800 of 2024 pending before the Ld. 2nd Jt. Civil Judge JD/JMFC, Vasai, be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof FIR No.I-200 of 2024 dated 11/05/2024 registered with Achole Police Station, Chargesheet No.154/2024 and Reg. Criminal Case No.1800 of 2024 pending before the Ld.2nd Jt. Civil Judge JD/JMFC, Vasai, be quashed quashed and set aside.” 12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 22nd September 2026. 13. Advocates for Petitioner and Complainant shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of them 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 6 of 7 WP.3993.2026.doc this order, which shall be noted by the Petitioner/parties to the Petition. 14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.08 15:08:42 +0530