Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: September 17, 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Niraj Rajaram More.
  • Respondents: The State of Maharashtra and an unnamed second respondent (the Complainant).
  • Application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakshana Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quash of FIR/Crime No.637 of 2023 dated 30‑09‑2023, registered at Chikhali Police Station, Pimpri‑Chinchwad, Pune.
  • FIR alleged offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506(2) and Arms Act Sections 3 and 25.
  • Background: On 28‑09‑2023 a Ganesh Visarjan procession organized by Sudhir Bhagwan More led to a quarrel. On 29‑09‑2023 the Complainant received an abusive call from Kishore, went to Narayan Housing Society, met the Applicant, Kishore and Yash Jadhav, and was assaulted. The Applicant allegedly brandished a licensed pistol.
  • The Complainant lodged FIR on 30‑09‑2023. Applicant’s anticipatory bail was initially rejected, later allowed by order dated 04‑11‑2023 (Anticipatory Bail Application No.3136 of 2023).
  • Respondent No.2 (Complainant) filed an Affidavit of Consent dated 31‑08‑2026 stating he could not identify the Applicant, that the Applicant was mistakenly named, and that he has no intention to prosecute.
  • The Court considered whether Section 482 of CrPC or Section 528 of BNSS permits partial quash of FIR against a single accused among several.
  • Amicus Curiae Satyam A. Surana submitted that no legal bar exists to quash FIR against specific accused, citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents (Lovely Salhotra, K. Bharthi Devi, Poonam Khanna, Vijay Kumar Gupta et al., Sunil Tomar, Ishwar Pratap Singh).
  • The Court examined principles from State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal and other authorities, noting that consent‑based quash is permissible when the offence is not heinous and the dispute is civil in nature.
  • The Court emphasized the need to levy costs in consent‑quash matters to deter misuse of criminal law and compensate public resources.

Final Outcome

  • The application is allowed; FIR No.637 of 2023 is quashed and set aside as against the Applicant, Niraj Rajaram More.
  • The Complainant is directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000 to the corpus of A.K. Munshi Yojana, a trust registered under the Society Registration Act, XXI of 1980 (Reg. No. 387/81 GBBSD) and the Public Trust Act, XXIX of 1950 (Reg. No. F‑6809), which runs medical, vocational and special education centres.
  • Costs to be paid within two weeks of the order; compliance to be listed on 06‑10‑2026.
  • The criminal application is disposed of.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Consent Quash