5. WP 4221-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4221 OF 2026 Rameez Shaukat Thobani & ors. .Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Chinmay Patil a/w. Mr. Yash Mehta, Advocates, for the Petitioners Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP, for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 10.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Kakade, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. This is a Petition for quashing of FIR. The parties have the relationship of landlord and tenant. Complaint was filed for cheating and forgery due to non-vacating of the landlord’s premises. Parties have reconciled their dispute and have persuaded the Court to consider the present Petition by consent quashing. Parties were embroiled in a Civil Suit which is settled between them for the same subject property. 3. I have perused the material placed on record and Consent Affidavit dated 09.07.2026 of Respondent No. 2 is appended at page Anand 1 of 7 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.19 15:00:00 +0530 5. WP 4221-2026.doc No. 47. Respondent No. 2 is presently in the United States of America and she has made an attempt to login but unsuccessfully. Her Advocate is present. I have considered her consent Affidavit which is filed and the averments made in the said Affidavit prima facie show that she has given her absolute consent for quashing the present complaint. In view of the settlement terms arrived at between the parties in Special Civil Suit No. 632 of 2025 and the said Special Civil Suit No. 632 of 2025 before the Civil Court having been withdrawn by virtue of order dated 24.12.2025 and vacant possession of the subject premises having been returned back to the landlord, I am inclined to accept the request made for quashing the present Writ Petition by consent. 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 Anand 2 of 7 5. WP 4221-2026.doc 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. 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 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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 5. WP 4221-2026.doc 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”. 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 Anand 4 of 7 5. WP 4221-2026.doc 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 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, Anand 5 of 7 5. WP 4221-2026.doc Petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under :- Name of Bank: Bank of Maharashtra Account Number : 60434381304 IFSC Code : MAHB0002075 MICR Code: 423014102 Registered Name : Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon. Registration No. : MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352/Nashik Office Address : S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No. 13, Near Panchaganga Anand 6 of 7 5. WP 4221-2026.doc Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist.Nashik, Maharashtra, Mobile No. : +91 8208525304. The Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 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 clause ‘a’ which read thus:- “a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside FIR bearing No. 824/2025, registered with Yerwada Police Station, Pune City, Pune dated 03.12.2025 for offence punishable under Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) AND 3(5) of BNS, 2023 in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 11. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 30.09.2026. 12. Advocate for the Petitioners shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioners 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 this order, which shall be noted by the Petitioners. 13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7