Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 21.09.2026

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR arising from a dispute between a member of a co-operative housing society and persons allegedly involved with the new developer appointed for the society’s redevelopment, after the complainant and the accused reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while allowing a batch of six petitions, explained that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) substantially reproduces the inherent powers earlier contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and enables High Courts to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The order was passed on September 18, 2026, with the lead matter being Mohammed Jasim Bhati v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 4532 of 2026.

Six Petitions Sought Quashing of Same FIR

• The High Court was dealing with six petitions arising from FIR No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai.
• The lead petition was filed by Mohammed Jasim Bhati. The connected petitions were filed by Rajeev Narayandas Bhathija, Samina Rayees Khan, Horace Poorekhorsandi, Abdul Kader Haji Noor Mohammed and Shakeel Ahmed Bhati.
• All the petitions were filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR.

FIR Arose From Society Redevelopment Dispute

• The complainant was a member of a co-operative housing society and had a dispute concerning his gala premises in relation to the redevelopment undertaken by the society.
• According to the order, the petitioners were accused by the complainant of having colluded with the new developer appointed by the society.
• However, the Court specifically noted that the complainant’s grievance was restricted to his own gala premises.
• The dispute subsequently took a different course when the complainant and petitioners reconciled and jointly sought to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.

Former Developer Seeks to Intervene

• An additional issue arose when the society’s former developer, whose Development Agreement had been terminated, sought to intervene in the criminal writ petitions.
• Counsel appearing for the old developer argued that the FIR concerning the complainant’s gala also affected certain substantive rights of the former developer.
• The Court was informed that several civil proceedings relating to the parties’ substantive rights were already pending before the High Court as well as in arbitration.
• The old developer therefore sought time to intervene in the proceedings.

Bombay HC Rejects Old Developer’s Intervention

• The High Court rejected the intervention request outright.
• Justice Jadhav observed that whatever substantive rights the old developer might have against the society concerning the terminated Development Agreement could be pursued in the appropriate proceedings available under law.
• The Court noted that the former developer had already initiated civil proceedings before the High Court and arbitration proceedings.
• His intervention in criminal petitions which the complainant and accused themselves wanted to have quashed by consent was therefore held to be not maintainable.
• At the same time, the High Court protected the former developer’s position by expressly keeping open any rights he might have concerning his relationship with the society, the redevelopment or the terminated Development Agreement.
• The Court made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of those substantive rights.

Six Consent Affidavits Filed by Complainant

• A decisive development was the filing of six consent affidavits dated September 12, 2026, one in each of the six petitions.
• After examining the affidavits, the High Court recorded that the parties had “reconciled their dispute altogether.”
• Justice Jadhav observed that the Court needed to intervene so that the “ignominy of the criminal proceeding” concerning the complainant’s single gala was not carried forward after the underlying dispute had been resolved.
• The Court therefore found it appropriate to allow the petitions.

Section 528 BNSS Carries Forward Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC

The judgment is particularly relevant because it explains the relationship between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court observed that Section 482 CrPC conferred inherent powers upon High Courts to make orders necessary to:

• Give effect to an order of the Court, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
• The Court then noted that under the BNSS, this power has been incorporated in Section 528, which substantially reproduces the language and intent of the former Section 482 CrPC.
• The ruling therefore reinforces that the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS has not removed the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

Section 528 BNSS Remains a Discretionary Power

• Justice Jadhav emphasised that the inherent power is not mechanical or automatic.
• The Court observed that High Courts may intervene where proceedings have been instituted with mala fide motives, to harass an accused, or where continuation of proceedings would result in procedural harassment.
• The provision can also enable the Court to terminate FIRs or criminal proceedings where the circumstances justify exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
• Importantly, however, the High Court stated that exercise of powers formerly under Section 482 CrPC and now under Section 528 BNSS remains discretionary and depends upon the facts of each case.

Bombay HC Relies on Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal Judgment

• The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604.
• The Court noted that Bhajan Lal laid down model categories and guidelines identifying circumstances in which FIRs may be quashed.
• Justice Jadhav further observed that the Supreme Court had explained that the inherent power is an acknowledgment of powers already inherent in the High Court rather than the source of some additional jurisdiction.

Even Non-Compoundable Offences May Be Quashed in Appropriate Cases

• The Bombay High Court also reiterated an important distinction between compounding an offence and quashing criminal proceedings through the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
• Referring to the principles discussed in Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed where necessary, with the High Court required to consider whether continuation of the prosecution would further or undermine the interests of justice.
• At the same time, the Court specifically cautioned that grave offences such as murder, rape and dacoity ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a settlement, since such offences carry wider societal implications.
• The order therefore does not lay down that every criminal case must be quashed once the parties settle. Rather, the inherent jurisdiction remains dependent upon the nature of the controversy and the interests of justice.

Private Nature of Redevelopment Dispute Considered

• In the present case, the criminal proceedings arose from a dispute connected with a society member’s own gala in a redevelopment project.
• The complainant’s allegations against the petitioners concerned their alleged collusion with the new developer, but the grievance remained confined to the complainant’s premises.
• With the complainant and petitioners having subsequently reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits, the High Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings was unnecessary.

FIR No. 0456 of 2026 Quashed

• The Bombay High Court ultimately allowed all six writ petitions in terms of their respective prayer clauses.
• The petitions sought issuance of an appropriate writ calling for the records concerning FIR C.R. No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, and quashing the FIR after examining its legality, validity and propriety.
• The connected petitions contained substantially identical reliefs concerning the same FIR.
• The High Court accordingly recorded:
• “All six Petitions are allowed and disposed.”
• Thus, Mohammed Jasim Bhati and the petitioners in the five connected matters succeeded in having the FIR quashed.
• What Happens to the Former Developer’s Claims?
• The order contains an important qualification concerning the former developer.
• Quashing of the criminal FIR does not adjudicate or extinguish the former developer’s independent civil or contractual rights.

The High Court expressly left open whatever rights the former developer may have regarding:

• his relationship with the co-operative housing society;
• the redevelopment project;
• termination of his Development Agreement; and
• remedies otherwise available to him under law.

Those questions may continue to be litigated in the already pending civil or arbitration proceedings, and the High Court expressly refrained from giving any opinion on their merits.

This distinction is important: the judgment terminates the criminal proceedings arising from the complainant’s individual gala dispute, but it does not determine the broader redevelopment dispute involving the former developer.

Why the Judgment Is Significant

• The ruling has significance under the new criminal procedural regime introduced by the BNSS because it expressly recognises the continuity between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
• The Bombay High Court has confirmed that Section 528 substantially preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to intervene where necessary to prevent abuse of judicial process and secure the ends of justice.
• The judgment also illustrates the distinction between criminal proceedings arising from an essentially private dispute and independent civil or contractual disputes involving third parties. Settlement of the former may justify quashing in an appropriate case, while the latter can remain open for adjudication in their proper forum.

Key Takeaway

The Bombay High Court’s ruling makes clear that Section 528 BNSS carries forward the inherent quashing jurisdiction previously exercised under Section 482 CrPC.

Where a criminal proceeding arises from a private dispute, the parties have fully reconciled, and continuation of the prosecution would no longer advance the interests of justice, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to bring the proceedings to an end. However, settlement is not an automatic ground for quashing every offence.

The nature and gravity of the alleged offence and its impact on society remain material considerations, with serious offences ordinarily standing on a different footing.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com