158. IA 2751-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2751 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4192 OF 2023 Sharad Baburao Botalje & ors. .Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Sharad Baburao Botalje & ors. .Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, Advocate, for the Applicants/Petitioners Mr. Heanike Vyas i/b. Mr. Shubham Kahite, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard Ms. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. I.A.No. 2751 of 2026 stands allowed and the order of dismissal of the Petition due to non-prosecution dated 05.12.2023 stands quashed and set aside. The Petition stands restored back to the record and file of the Court forthwith and is taken up for hearing and disposal. The Interim Application stands disposed of. Anand 1 of 7 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.21 21:13:01 +0530 158. IA 2751-2026.doc 3. The Writ Petition seeks consent quashing of the FIR and Criminal prosecution against the Petitioners on the grounds of cheating and breach of trust. The parties were having a business relationship and had exchanged amounts but due to certain losses incurred by the Petitioners, the amounts remained unpaid. This led to the filing of the Criminal complaint and FIR. Parties have now reconciled their disputes and intimate the Court jointly that they have filed that the Complainant has received and settled the receipt of the outstanding amounts and has therefore filed the Consent Affidavit. The Consent Affidavit dated 10.09.2026 is taken on record. Complainant is appearing on VC, whereas the Petitioners are before the Court. I have interacted with the parties. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 4. After filing of the Petition, Charge-sheet has already been filed. It is numbered as PW/2401532/2023 before the Borivali Court is also quashed and set aside as a consequence of allowing this Petition. 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 Anand 2 of 7 158. IA 2751-2026.doc 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. 7. In the above context, when parties settle their private dispute or 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 158. IA 2751-2026.doc 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 of the Trial Courts and Sessions Courts is wasted for handling a case, Anand 4 of 7 158. IA 2751-2026.doc 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 at large while considering consent quashing. Anand 5 of 7 158. IA 2751-2026.doc 10. 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, Petitioners are 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 (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 within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The Petitioners are present in Court and through their learned Advocate agree 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 allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which reads thus:- Anand 6 of 7 158. IA 2751-2026.doc “a) The Hon’ble High Court be pleased to quash the First Information Report bearing No. 766 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021 registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai City.” 12. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026. 13. 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. 14. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7