94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2026 Vijay Bal Chitre & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Mukesh Chotelal Mishra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Rishi Bhuta a/w Ms. Sonali Dalvi i/b Ms. Sonali Sudesh Dalvi, Advocates for Petitioners  Mr. Akshay Dhingale, Advocate for Respondent No. 1  Petitioners & Complainant present ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Bhuta, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Dhingale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1. 2. Complainant and all Petitioners are present before this Court. The dispute arose between the parties by virtue of the facility and working conditions for the members of the Mal Vahatuk Sena Union regarding loading and unloading work provided by Petitioners who are running a transportation business. 3. Parties have reconciled their disputes. Though the complaint is for extortion, at first blush it may appear serious, but the complaint is lodged on the basis of a demand for 1,000 demanded by Petitioners. ₹ Be that as it may, the consent affidavit dated 06.09.2026 filed by 1 of 3 94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt Complainant is before the Court. He would persuade the Court to put an end to the criminal proceedings so that both parties can be free to carry on with their work freely. Considering the lis in the present matter and the nature of the lis, I am inclined to accept the request made by parties for consent quashing. 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 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 1 1992 AIR 604 2 of 3 94. CRI WP-4603-26.odt 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. 6. In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- “a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other Writ, Order and/or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to call for the record and proceedings in FIR bearing No. 17 dated 22nd January 2021 registered with Sahar Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under sections 384, 386, 387 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and all proceedings arising therefrom including Police Cases PW/6301668/2021 pending on the files of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, and after ascertaining the legality and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside and all proceedings arising therefrom including Police Cases PW/6301668/2021 pending on the files of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 63rd Court, Andheri, Mumbai in the interest of justice. 7. Petition is allowed and disposed. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 3 of 3 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.19 16:20:12 +0530