59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.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 APPLICATION NO. 819 OF 2026 Cursino Jude Angelo Castellino .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1500 OF 2026 Sachin Krishna Mohite .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Mr. Sahil Chorpade, Advocates i/by GG Legal Associates for Applicant in Criminal Application No.819 of 2026.  Mr. Saurabh P. Patil, Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026.  Ms. Neuty Thakkar a/w. Mr. Yash Sheth, Advocates i/by Tushar Goradia, Advocates for Respondent No.2 in both Applications.  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026. P.C.: 1. Mentioned at the time of rising. Both learned Advocates persuade the Court to take up the matters for consent quashing as all parties are present in Court. 2. Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No.819 of 2026; Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant in Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026; Ms. Thakkar, learned 1 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both Applications and Mr. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State. 3. Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026 is not on board. It is mentioned and taken on board by consent of both parties. Both the Criminal Applications are disposed of by this order. 4. All parties are before the Court. Learned Advocates jointly inform Court that the principal dispute pertained to dishonor of cheques between the parties arising out of a land transaction leading to filing of FIR. They inform that the entire lis / dispute now stands amicably settled and resolved as contended by the Complainant who is common in both the Applications. His Affidavit dated 09.09.2026 is placed before me and I have perused the same. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11, he has stated as under:- “10. I respectfully state in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I do not desire to prosecute the criminal proceedings against the Applicant any further and believe that continuation of such proceedings would not serve any useful purpose. 11. I, therefore, respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the accompanying Criminal Application and quash C.R. No. 19 of 2026 registered with Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and all consequential proceedings against the Applicant.” 5. There are two accused persons in the present case, hence 2 Criminal Applications are filed separately before the Court in the same crime. Considering the consent Affidavits filed by Complainant and most importantly the settlement agreement having been appended 2 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc thereto, the wish of the parties deserve to be allowed since the parties desire to move on in their lives without the ignominy of the criminal prosecution / proceedings. 6. In that view of the matter, I find no reason as to why both Applications should not be allowed so that the parties can proceed. 7. 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. 8. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc 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. 9. 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”. 10. 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 4 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc 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. 11. 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 5 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc 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. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Applicants for his action resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, Applicants should pay costs. Hence, both the Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- each to Account Name : Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund, Bank Name : State Bank of India, Branch Name : Mumbai main branch, Account Number : 10996711937, IFSC Code : SBIN0000300, Type of Account : Saving A/c, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicants are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 13. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.819 of 2026 stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- “a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside entire consequent proceedings emanating from the F.I.R. 6 of 7 59.APL.819.2026 & P8.APL.1500.2026.doc vide CR No.19/2026 dated 09.01.2026 registered with Chunabhatti Police Station u/s 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 62 of BNS, 2023 against above-named Applicants, lodged at the instance of present Respondent no. 2 namely Prince Dhaaramchand Surana by exercising its inherent power as provided section 528 of the BNSS.” 14. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.1500 of 2026 stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- “A. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR No. 19 of 2026 registered by the Chunabhatti Police Station on 09/01/2026 along with the chargesheet under Sections 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, against the Applicant.” 15. In view of the above, both Criminal Applications are disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.12 15:49:30 +0530