1. Heard Mr. Prem Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Applicant.

2. The parties are before the Court. The Respondent No.2/Complainant is an Advocate. He has filed his Affidavit of consent for having received invested amount. He has already received an amount of Rs.50,000/- previously as stated in the Affidavit. Today, he received Demand Draft of Rs.9,68,500/- dated 01.09.2026 drawn on Axis Bank as stated in the Affidavit.

3. Considering the lis between the parties having been fructified by virtue of their settlement and the Consent Affidavit dated 18.09.2026 filed by the Complainant, the Application stands allowed.

4. 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 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.

5. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal, 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.

6. 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 Court by “consent quashing”.

7. 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.

9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Applicant, for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Applicant, should pay costs.

Hence, Applicant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- 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.

The trust imparts 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).

The school address and building is 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.

The payment is to be made within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

The Applicant is present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

10. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’ which read thus:-

“a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the above-mentioned Cr. No. 0872/2026 registered with Vile Parle Police Station, Dist. Mumbai for the offence punishable under section 318(4) of BNS on the such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper may please be granted.”

11. List the Criminal Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 05.10.2026.

12. Advocate for the Applicant shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Applicant 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 Applicant.

13. Criminal Application is allowed and disposed.

The present Criminal Application was heard before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.