Court exercises inherent powers under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash FIR against one accused amid consent of complainant; Rs. 20,000 costs imposed for vexatious litigation
In a significant decision delivered on September 17, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to partially quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune. The FIR, bearing Crime No. 637 of 2023, involved serious charges including sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The case arose from an incident during a Ganesh Visarjan procession on September 28, 2023, which escalated into a violent altercation between two groups. The complainant, Sudhir Bhagwan More, alleged that Niraj Rajaram More (applicant) and others assaulted him, with the applicant allegedly threatening him with a licensed pistol. Following a failed anticipatory bail application at the Sessions Court, the applicant secured bail from the High Court.
Crucially, the complainant later filed an affidavit clarifying that the applicant was mistakenly named in the FIR due to confusion amid the chaotic incident. The complainant expressed no intention to prosecute the applicant, thereby consenting to quash the FIR against him.
Addressing the legal question of whether the Court can quash the FIR partially-i.e., against some accused while allowing proceedings against others to continue-the Court relied on established precedents including Supreme Court rulings in Lovely Salhotra v. State of NCT Delhi and K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana. It confirmed there is no legal impediment to partial quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) or Section 528 of BNSS, provided there is no prima facie case against the accused.
Justice Jadhav emphasized that the High Court's inherent powers are discretionary and must be exercised cautiously, especially in cases involving serious offences. However, where prosecution appears unwarranted or initiated with malafide intent, quashing is permissible. Importantly, the Court noted that while grievous offences affecting society at large are generally not quashed even on settlement, private disputes that do not implicate public interest may warrant relief.
Highlighting the misuse of criminal law as a tool for private settlements, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on the complainant. The costs are directed to be paid to a trust supporting special children's education and vocational training, thereby deterring vexatious litigation and conserving public resources and judicial time.
The Court ordered the FIR and all subsequent proceedings be quashed against Niraj Rajaram More alone, while the case continues against other accused persons. The complainant's consent affidavit played a pivotal role in the Court's decision to grant relief.
This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be exploited to harass individuals and that courts possess the power to intervene to prevent abuse of the legal process. At the same time, the imposition of costs signals judicial intolerance for frivolous or exaggerated complaints that burden the system.
Bottom Line:
Exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 - FIR can be partially quashed against certain accused persons when there is no prima facie case against them, and the complainant consents to such quashing.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
Niraj Rajaram More v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982089
