Can't Use Courts To Recover Money: Bombay High Court Says Costs Should Be Imposed In Pleas To Quash Matrimonial, Commercial FIRs
Observing that 'courts' cannot be used as 'recovery mechanisms', the Bombay High Court recently opined that courts must impose costs in case of quashing First Information Report (FIR) on mutual consent, particularly in commercial and matrimonial disputes.Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav explained that criminal law cannot be used as a 'bargaining chip' or a tool to settle personal scores...
Observing that 'courts' cannot be used as 'recovery mechanisms', the Bombay High Court recently opined that courts must impose costs in case of quashing First Information Report (FIR) on mutual consent, particularly in commercial and matrimonial disputes.
Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav explained that criminal law cannot be used as a 'bargaining chip' or a tool to settle personal scores by 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 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," the judge observed.
Justice Jadhav further pointed out another reason for imposing costs in commercial and matrimonial disputes as it curbs the 'growing trend' of filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints to force financial and legal settlements.
"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," the bench said.
The judge further said in some cases, even the State converts a civil dispute into a criminal case and thus, costs can even be imposed on the State.
"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 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," the judge said.
This September 18 order was passed while quashing a FIR lodged against one Kaustubh Vibhute, who was booked in a criminal case after he failed to make payments to the complainant. The judge noted that the facts of the case clearly indicated that it was a commercial dispute and thus, now that the complaint and the accused petitioner 'reconciled' and 'settled' their disputes, the FIR could be quashed by imposing some costs.
Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner in July 2026 at the Baner Police Station in Pune. However, the bench ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 25,000 as costs and deposit the same with A.K. Munshi Yojana, a Trust running school for special children in Girgaon.
Appearance:
Advocate Dhanraj Lodha appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa Talhar represented the State
Advocate Siddharth Khandelwal represented the Complainant.
Case Title: Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute vs State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application (ST) 18957 of 2026]