152. WP 1876-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 2026 Sanjay Tukaram Mhase Patil .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Ashraf Kapoor, Advocate, for the Petitioner Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State Mr. Atit Oza a/w. Mr. Mohsin Ghaniwala, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – State and Mr. Oza, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The original dispute between the parties pertains to land transaction with regard to registered Sale Deed dated 05.01.2018. Both the learned Counsel, Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Oza are before me representing and espousing the cause of private parties. Affidavit of consent has been filed by Mr. Oza on behalf of Respondent No.2. Mr.Oza is led by Mr. Ghaniwala, who is on VC. I have heard all the learned Counsels at the bar. Perused the record of the case with their Anand 1 of 7 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.21 21:11:53 +0530 152. WP 1876-2026.doc able assistance. Parties have mutually and amicably resolved their entire lis by executing Consent Terms dated 18.12.2025 at the time of grant of Anticipatory Bail itself and they have been taken on the record of the Court. The obligations under the Consent Terms have also been complied with by the respective parties, as can be seen from the Consent Affidavit. The parties therefore urge before the Court to put an end to the Criminal prosecution and proceedings so that the parties can be free to lead their respective lives without the ignominy of the Criminal proceedings so as not to hamper their future prospects. 3. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the material on record and the request made by the parties, I am inclined to accept and allow the present Petition. 4. There are total five Accused persons. However, the Petition is filed only by one Accused person. That does not matter in view of the averments made in the Consent Affidavit by the Complainant to quash the complaint in its entirety. 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 Anand 2 of 7 152. WP 1876-2026.doc 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. 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. 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 152. WP 1876-2026.doc 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 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 Anand 4 of 7 152. WP 1876-2026.doc 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. 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 Anand 5 of 7 152. WP 1876-2026.doc 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 Petitioner, for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana a trust which runs medical centres, vocational 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 (up to 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 within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The Petitioner is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 11. 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 Anand 6 of 7 152. WP 1876-2026.doc allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’which read thus:- “a) The present petition be allowed; b) FIR C. R. No. 178 of 2025 dated 24.10.2025 registered with Neral Police Station, District Raigad, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and all proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed and set aside.” 12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order on 28.09.2026. 13. Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioner 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 Petitioner. 14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7