145.APL.1730.2026.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. 1730 OF 2026 Ankit Harendra Kumar Gosalia .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. P.K. Sanghrajka, Advocate i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for Applicant.  Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  Ms. Reeti Upadhyay a/w. Ms. Archismati Chandramore, Vaazishta Pardiwala, Ms. Srusthi Dhawale, Advocates for Respondent No.2. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Sanghrajka, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Upadhyay, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The parties are both before me. Applicant appears online on VC whereas the Complainant is physically present in Court. They both are engaged in the business of trading bullion and marketing jewellry and have deep roots in India as well as extended family living in India. Due to a dispute between them with regard to business transactions an amount of Rs.6.52 crores remaining unpaid and therefore the present complaint came to be filed in the year 2019. 3. Both parties have now reconciled their lis and exchanged money and are now desirous of putting an end to the criminal 1 of 6 145.APL.1730.2026.doc proceedings and prosecution because it affects their business prospects as well as their livelihood. Affidavit of consent is filed by Respondent No.2 - Complainant which prima facie states that the parties have known each other otherwise for a very long time and belong to the same community and have had dealings with regard to their business with each other. 4. The Complainant states that Section 138 of proceedings were also initiated with regard to the present issue and now since a compromise and amicable settlement has occurred, those proceedings have been withdrawn. He therefore desires to withdraw the present proceedings. His consent Affidavit dated 11.09.2026 is taken on record. After having interacted with both the parties and after hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates, in view of the request made and in view of the nature of the dispute, I am inclined to accept the request made and allow the Application. 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 6 145.APL.1730.2026.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 6 145.APL.1730.2026.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 6 145.APL.1730.2026.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 Applicant for his action resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant should pay costs. Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to Account Name: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Advocate Aid Fund; Bank 5 of 6 145.APL.1730.2026.doc Name: State Bank of India; Branch Name: Mumbai Main Branch; Account No.10996711937; IFS Code: SBIN0000300 and Type of Account: Savings Account. Applicant is present through VC and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount as directed. 11. In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates persuade the Court to allow the Application by consent quashing. The Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ which read thus:- “a) quash the proceedings of C.R. No. 77 of 2019 registered with the Economic Offence Wing, Unit-I, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 275 of 2019 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station), for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including the police report filed in pursuance thereof vide C.C. No. 421/PW/2024 pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, and all proceedings arising therefrom, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just; b) quash and set aside the Look Out Circular and any Red Corner Notice issued against the Applicant arising from C.R. No. 77 of 2019 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, Unit-I, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 275 of 2019 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station), for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, together with the consequent criminal case No. 421/PW/2024 pending before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just.” 12. In view of the above, Criminal Application is disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.12 18:19:43 +0530