127. APL-790-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 790 OF 2026 Kamlesh Kedarnath Rai .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Rishi Bhuta a/w Ms. Saakshi Jha, Advocates for Applicant  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for State  Mr. Ujjwal Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Bhuta, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for State and Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3. 2. Present Application is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the chargesheet in C.R. No. 578/2025 registered with the MIDC Police Station under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the proceedings pending on the files of the Ld. Addl. Chief JMFC, XXII Court, Andheri vide C.C. No. 3721/PW/2025. 3. Parties before the Court run a hotel business together. Mr. Bhuta would submit that on the basis of hand loan of 5 Lakhs exchanged between the parties, the return and reciprocation of the 1 of 7 127. APL-790-26.odt said sum was not done and FIR was lodged and Applicant was apprehended on the ground of extortion. However it is seen that Immediately three days thereafter, Complainant approached the concerned Magistrate and filed an affidavit to the effect of reconciliation of their differences and both parties in fact been business partners and running the hotel business establishment together. 4. Consent affidavit dated 15.04.2026 of Complainant is filed before me. Both parties are present before Court. I have interacted with them. I prima facie find that whatever may have happened, it should not now come in their way of they doing business together and therefore, at the request made by both parties, I am inclined to allow the present Application by consent quashing. 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 7 127. APL-790-26.odt 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 1 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 127. APL-790-26.odt 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 way such 4 of 7 127. APL-790-26.odt 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 actions 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. 10,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, vocational 5 of 7 127. APL-790-26.odt training centres and which also runs a Special School called J.T. Sheth Mandbuddhi Vikas Kendra, 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 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. 11. Applicant is present in Court and through his Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity within a period of two weeks from today. 12. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads thus:- “c . That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the chargesheet in C.R. No. 578/2025 registered with the MIDC Police Station under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the proceedings pending on the files of the Ld. Addl. Chief JMFC, XXII Court, Andheri vide C.C. No. 3721/PW/2025 on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper" 13. List the Application for compliance of the order on 16th October, 2026. 6 of 7 127. APL-790-26.odt 14. Advocate for Applicant shall remain present and show compliance on that date. If he does 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 Applicant. 15. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.15 15:51:48 +0530