105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1821 OF 2025 Mukesh Bhimkumar Patwa .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2025 Mahesh Bhimkumar Patwa .Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 1821 of 2025 Mr. Mithun Mahajan, Advocate, for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 1826 of 2025 Mr. Mithun Mahajan, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 1821 of 2025 Mr. Nitesh Hinduja, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2 in W. P. No. 1826 of 2025 Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 1821 of 2025 Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State in W. P. No. 1826 of 2025 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 P. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned APPs for Respondent No. 1 – State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Anand 1 of 5 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.21 21:10:52 +0530 105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc 2. All parties are related to each other. Precursor to the incidents in question is the previous distribution of property between them. These are incidents of cross complaints between the parties. Petitioner in W. P. No. 1821 of 2025 questioned the Complainant, his cousin brother, which led to a verbal altercation, scuffle and fight resulting in simple injury to Complainant. Cross complaint was registered against Complainant by the wife of Petitioner. That is the second Petition, being W. P. No. 1826 of 2025 where the Petitioner in W. P. No.1821 of 2025 is the Accused. All parties are present in Court and inform the Court that their differences have been resolved and they wish to move ahead in life and seek quashing of both Criminal proceedings qua each other. In adhering to their request and the nature of proceedings and complaints, both the Petitions are accepted and stand allowed. 3. 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 Anand 2 of 5 105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 5 105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc 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”. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that both the Petitioners before me in both the Writ Petitions for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings against each other and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the above matter, the present Petitions deserve to be allowed as directed herein above. They are so allowed in terms of the prayer prayed for as under :- Writ Petition No.1821 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. “a) Pleased be quash and set aside the F.I.R.No. 0606/2024 dated 17.07.2024, registered at Malad Police station, for the offence punishable U/s 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Case W no. --- of 2025, before Ad.C.J.M, at Mumbai. Writ Petition No.1826 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’. a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside Anand 4 of 5 105 & 106. WP 1821-2025 (common order).doc the F.I.R. No. 0607/2024 dated 18.07.2024, registered at Malad Police station, for the offence punishable U/s 74, 79, 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Case W no. 520 of 2025, before Ad.C.J.M, at Mumbai.” 8. Both Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 5 of 5