Zohra Shakir Khania v. State of Maharashtra and Anr

Ajay

IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION

NO. 3324 OF 2026

Zohra Shakir Khania .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Ms. Gayatri Gokhale, Advocate for Petitioner.  Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State.  Ms. Zainba Abdi, Advocate i/by Ms. Sneha Jethna for Respondent No.2. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. P.C.:

¶1Heard Ms. Gokhale, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent – State and Ms. Abdi, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶2Both the parties are present in Court and consent Affidavit of the Complainant - Respondent No.2 is filed which is appended at Exhibit 'C' - page No.68 of the Petition. I have perused the same. The dispute arose out of a relationship between the Petitioner and the Complainant's son and the parties with the intervention of well-wishers have amicably settled their disputes and differences and have desired to move ahead in life. They have requested the Court for consent quashing. On perusal of the Affidavit of consent at page No.68 and the request by the learned Advocate, the Petition Stands allowed. 1 of 6

¶3Section 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.

¶4In 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 1992 AIR 604 2 of 6 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.

¶5In 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".

¶6For 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, 3 of 6 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 matters/ litigation in one way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle.

¶7Another 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 4 of 6 at large while considering consent quashing.

¶8Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner for his action resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, in the facts of the present case the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 – Complainant both should pay costs. Hence, both Petitioner and Respondent No.2 - Complainant are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each 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. Parties are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount as directed.

¶9In this view of the above, both the learned Advocates 5 of 6 persuade the Court to allow the Petition by consent quashing. The Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing no. C.R. No. 262/2018 registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, as well as Case No. PW/1500/2023, along with the cognizance order dated

01.12.2023 passed by the Learned JMFC, 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioner and any other application arising therefrom and incidental thereto on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside all matters / applications arising out of F.I.R. No. 262/2018 and CC No. PW/1500/2023 and Cognizance order dated 01.12.2023, and incidental thereto."

¶10List the Writ Petition on board for compliance on 5th October 2026.

¶11In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.18 10:21:54 +0530