Sharad Nivrutti Balwadkar and Anr v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr

Sharada

IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1645 OF 2026 Sharad Nivrutti Balwadkar And Anr .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Yuvraj Tajane a/w Ms. Ashvini Mehetre Advocates for Applicants.  Ms. Gauri Rao, APP for Respondent-State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2026 P.C.

:

¶1Heard Mr. Tajane, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gauri Rao, learned APP for Respondent-State.

¶2This Application is filed under Section 482 of the CRPC by parties on the ground of "consent quashing". With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and learned APP, I have perused the entire record of the case. I do not find it necessary to delineate the same in its entirety herein for the sake of brevity.

¶3Briefly stated the complainant in the present case, is the father of Applicant No. 1 and father-in-law of Applicant No. 2. The complaint was filed alleging that Applicants had committed criminal trespass upon the land belonging to complainant, bearing Gat No. 1 of 7 SHARADA RANGNATH WAHULE Date: 2026.10.19 16:28:00 +0530 90/1, situated at Wagholi, Awhalwadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.

¶4The disputes between the parties pertain to transactions concerning the said land, including a subsequent gift deed and other related issues. Admittedly, the complainant instituted a civil suit against both Applicants, which came to be decreed in his favour. The Applicants have preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree and it is pending.

¶5Complainant has expired considering the demise of complainant and the fact that the civil dispute between the parties has already been adjudicated, with the decision of civil court being in favour of the complainant, subject to the appeal preferred by the Applicants, I am inclined to allow the Applicants' prayer for quashing the FIR insofar as the allegation of criminal trespass is concerned. The cause of action arising out of the alleged trespass, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not independently survive, particularly in view of the decree passed by the civil court in favour of Respondent No. 2, the original complainant. It is also relevant to note that the complainant was constrained to initiate and pursue the criminal proceedings in view of the alleged acts of the Applicants who are his own blood relatives.

¶6Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to 2 of 7 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.

¶7In 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 1992 AIR 604 3 of 7 because they involve societal implication.

¶8In 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".

¶9For 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 4 of 7 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.

¶10Another 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. 5 of 7

¶11Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Applicants for their actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicants should pay costs. Hence, Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- 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 2 weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

¶12All Applicants are present in Court and through their learned Advocates agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

¶13In 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 clauses ' a ' which read thus:- "a) FIR No.1095 of 2020 lodged under Section 143, 323, 504, 506 and 447 of IPC dated 27.12.2020 registered with Lonikand Police 6 of 7 Station Pune, Final report / charge-sheet No.230 of 2022 under section 447, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Summons/Summary Criminal Case No.33127 of 2024 registered on 06.03.2024 with 11-12th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC, Court, Pune of issue process against accused be quashed and set aside".

¶14List the Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 30th October 2026.

¶15Advocates for Applicants shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of all Applicants on the returnable date for compliance. If they do 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 Applicants.

¶16Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 7 of 7