The Bombay High Court has imposed a costs of Rs 20,000 on a complainant while allowing the application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakshana Sanhita, 2023 for quashing a criminal case against one of the accused out of the seven accused persons named in the FIR. The High Court further held that costs can be imposed on the parties in matters coming before the Court by consent quashing.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakshana Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)seeking to quash and set aside the First Information Report registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held, “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 the Court by “consent quashing”.

Advocate Arjun Pawar represented the Applicant while Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Phad represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that a Ganesh Visarjan procession was organised by the Complainant and a quarrel broke out between two groups of persons dancing in the procession which was immediately resolved by the Respondent Complainant. The next day, the Complainant received a phone call from one Kishore, who abused him and asked him to come to Narayan Housing Society, Morwasti, Chikali. The Complainant left his home and proceeded to the Society where he met the Applicant along with Kishore and one Yash Jadhav standing on the road. When Complainant approached them, they began hurling abuses at Complainant regarding the previous day’s dispute and inflicted fist and kick blows upon him.

It was alleged that several persons assaulted the complainant and when he raised an alarm, the Applicant took out a pistol and threatened to kill him. It was in such circumstances that the FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 read with 25 of Arms Act against Applicant and other persons. The Applicant filed an Anticipatory Bail Application before the District and Sessions Court which came to be rejected. The Applicant challenged the same before the High Court which came to be allowed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that 7 accused persons were named in the FIR and the Applicant was one of the accused persons. The Complainant sought to quash the FIR against one accused person i.e. Applicant only.

Explaining that Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code conferrs 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, the Bench stated, “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.”

The Bench further stated that in such cases of consent quashing, imposition of costs 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, 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”, it stated.

Thus, considering that the Complainant invoked criminal proceedings against the Applicant and subsequently retracted his allegations which led to both parties seeking quashing by consent, the Bench allowed the application and asked the Complainant to pay costs of Rs 20,000 towards the Corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana, a trust which runs medical centres, vocational training centres and a Special School.

Cause Title: Niraj Rajaram More v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37904)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Arjun Pawar, Shrikant Patil, Swapnil Pawar, Rohan Bhondave

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Phad, Advocates Gaurav D. Kakade, Amicus Curiae Satyam A. Surana

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Milind N Jadhav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.