147. WP 1749-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026 Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Petitioner through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj Jadia Vs. ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME WITH Date: 2026.09.19 19:40:03 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1379 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026 Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Petitioner through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj Jadia Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents Mr. P. Y. Shankar a/w. Mr. Nazreen Khan & Ms. Priya Mailurkar, Advocates, for the Petitioner/Applicant Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for the Respondent – State Mr. Sujit Sahoo a/w. Ms. Zainab Burmawala, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 Ms. Sonam Pandey a/w. Ms. Sandhya Yadav i/b. Ashok Purohit & Co., Advocates, for Respondent No. 6 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 Anand 1 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc P. C. 1. The present Petition is for partial quashing qua the Petitioner before me, who is arraigned as Accused No. 4 in the present crime. FIR is registered in 2025 for incidents and offences committed between 2017 and 2024 for cheating and breach of trust. Complainant has no grievance qua the Applicant/Accused No.4 before the Court.

Complainant has filed Affidavit of Consent dated 14.04.2026. However, since this is for partial quashing, the Petitioner before me has also impleaded the other Accused persons, who are represented by Ms. Pandey. Mr. Sahoo represents the Complainant. The Complainant has no grievance with respect to quashing of the present complaint qua Accused No. 4. This will be a case of partial quashing. In view of the decision in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 decided on 10.04.2017, partial quashing is permissible. The Affidavit of Consent is filed on record. The present Petition qua quashing of the complaint partially qua the Applicant before me i.e. Accused No. 4 stands allowed. 2. It is clarified that insofar as the substantive rights of the other co-accused persons in the FIR is concerned, the same shall subsist and shall be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. 3. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred Anand 2 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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 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. 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. This is because after criminal machinery is set into motion, the Police Anand 4 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 7. Another 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 Anand 5 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner, for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner and Applicant in both matters are directed to pay combined 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, 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. The Petitioner is Anand 6 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 9. In 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 clause ‘b’ which read thus:-“b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the First Information Report No. 0431 of 2025 registered on 23/8/2025 under sections 34, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) by the Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2 (Informant) against the Petitioner.” 10. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026. 11. Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioner 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 Petitioner. 12. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. 13. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, I. A. No. 1379 of 2026 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7

147. WP 1749-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026 Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Petitioner through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj Jadia Vs. ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME WITH Date: 2026.09.19 19:40:03 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1379 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2026 Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Anuradha Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Petitioner through its authorized person Mr. Parth Manoj Jadia Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents Mr. P. Y. Shankar a/w. Mr. Nazreen Khan & Ms. Priya Mailurkar, Advocates, for the Petitioner/Applicant Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP, for the Respondent – State Mr. Sujit Sahoo a/w. Ms. Zainab Burmawala, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 Ms. Sonam Pandey a/w. Ms. Sandhya Yadav i/b. Ashok Purohit & Co., Advocates, for Respondent No. 6 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 11.09.2026 Anand 1 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc P. C. 1. The present Petition is for partial quashing qua the Petitioner before me, who is arraigned as Accused No. 4 in the present crime. FIR is registered in 2025 for incidents and offences committed between 2017 and 2024 for cheating and breach of trust. Complainant has no grievance qua the Applicant/Accused No.4 before the Court.

Complainant has filed Affidavit of Consent dated 14.04.2026. However, since this is for partial quashing, the Petitioner before me has also impleaded the other Accused persons, who are represented by Ms. Pandey. Mr. Sahoo represents the Complainant. The Complainant has no grievance with respect to quashing of the present complaint qua Accused No. 4. This will be a case of partial quashing. In view of the decision in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of NCT Delhi and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 decided on 10.04.2017, partial quashing is permissible. The Affidavit of Consent is filed on record. The present Petition qua quashing of the complaint partially qua the Applicant before me i.e. Accused No. 4 stands allowed. 2. It is clarified that insofar as the substantive rights of the other co-accused persons in the FIR is concerned, the same shall subsist and shall be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. 3. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred Anand 2 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 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 1 1992 AIR 604 Anand 3 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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 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. 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. This is because after criminal machinery is set into motion, the Police Anand 4 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 7. Another 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 Anand 5 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

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. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner, for his actions resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioner, should pay costs. Hence, Petitioner and Applicant in both matters are directed to pay combined 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, 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. The Petitioner is Anand 6 of 7 147. WP 1749-2026.doc

present in Court and through his learned Advocate agrees to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity. 9. In 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 clause ‘b’ which read thus:-“b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the First Information Report No. 0431 of 2025 registered on 23/8/2025 under sections 34, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) by the Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2 (Informant) against the Petitioner.” 10. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 28.09.2026. 11. Advocate for the Petitioner shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of the Petitioner 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 Petitioner. 12. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. 13. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, I. A. No. 1379 of 2026 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 7 of 7