Bombay High Court

YASH NENSEE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 10 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court quashed FIR No.04/2020, the charge‑sheet and the pending criminal case, allowing the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, three young students, were charged under IPC sections 323, 324 and 34 for a simple injury that occurred during a New Year house party, where a mistaken‑identity slap led to a scuffle. They filed a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.04/2020, the charge‑sheet and the pending criminal case. The Court examined the facts, noting the lack of pre‑meditation, absence of mens rea, the trivial nature of the injury and the youthful status of the accused. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and the analogous provision in the BNSS, and guided by the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the prosecution would be contrary to the interests of justice. Consequently, the FIR, charge‑sheet and criminal case were quashed, and the petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs 15,000 each to a charitable trust.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under IPC sections 323, 324 and 34 can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC on the facts of mistaken identity and lack of mens rea.
Whether the youth and educational background of the accused warrant the exercise of the Court's inherent powers to dismiss the case.
Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioners for initiating criminal proceedings.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 324, 34

Subjects

quashing of FIR
Section 528 BNSS
Section 482 CrPC
mistaken identity
youth offender
simple injury
costs order
IPC 323
IPC 324
IPC 34

Judgment

WP.2203.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2203 OF 2026

Yash Nensee and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, a/w. Kishor Patil, Jagdish G. Arawad
Reddy, Keral Mehta and Ashwini Jadhav Advocates for Petitioners.
 Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w. Harsh Rathod. Advocates for
Respondent No.2
 Mr. Shishir Hiray, CPP a/w. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for
Respondent No.1 – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026.

P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr.

Gaware Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Hiray,

learned CPP for Respondent – State.

2. Present Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Petitioners seeking quashing of FIR

No.04 of 2020 registered with Santacruz Police Station on 01.01.2020

(for short “FIR”) for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324

read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

3. On 03.09.2026 after hearing the Petitioners and Respondent

No.1 – the following order was passed

“1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
Hiray, learned CPP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. The Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of First

1 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

Information Report No.4 of 2020 registered at Santacruz Police Station
under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. Prima facie, it is seen that on a very trivial and petty issue, which
is laced with mistaken identity, the Petitioners have been indicted
while they were having a house party. It is borne out from the record
that the Petitioners as well as the Complainant are having family
relations and cordial relations with each other and are known to each
other.
4. The parties before the Court were all students at the then time
and have now grown up in life and have moved forward. The house
party was infact of common school friends and innocuous reason
emanated from verbal argument led to a quarrel. There is simple
injury, which has been caused due to wearing of a (dMk) having worn
on the person of the Accused No.1 who is a Punjabi as informed by Mr.
Mundargi.
5. He has taken me through the papers appended to the Petition
which include the credentials of the Petitioners and they having now
settled in life.
6. An arguable case is made out by Mr. Mundargi for immediate
intervention of this Court in such matters since the Petitioners before
the Court are young offenders and it is the duty of the Court to
intervene in such matters so that the young offenders are given a
chance in their life to carry on and resurrect their life without the
ignominy of criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings.
7. Hence, issue notice to Respondent No.2. Learned CPP enters
appearance and waives service on behalf of Respondent No.1 – State.
8. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Petitioners are
directed to serve the Respondents a copy of this order and Petition and
inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of
service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof
thereof on the next adjourned date.
9. Compliance of this order be made. It is clarified that if
Respondent No.2 is served with a copy of this order and the Petition,
and if he does not remain present this Court, shall not await his
presence any further and decide the Petition in accordance with law on
the next adjourned date at the time of admission itself.
10. Stand over to 10th September, 2026. To be placed under the
caption ‘First on Board’.”

4. Today Mr. Gaware Patil, learned Advocate enters

appearance and has addressed the Court. I have considered his

submissions.

5. There are 3 Petitioners before me who are all young

offenders and students. Complainant is also a student. The incident

2 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

occurred on 31.12.2019 in the intervening night and on the eve of

New Year’s party on 01.01.2020. A house party was arranged by a

common friend of Petitioners and Complainant. At about 2:30 am

when the party was going on, a verbal altercation and argument

ensued resulting in a scuffle between Petitioner No.1 and

Complainant. Prosecution case is that Petitioner No.1 inflicted a blow

with a steel bangle (dMk) on Complainant’s head leading to simple

injury and bleeding. The Injury Certificate is at page No.39 which

classifies the injury as simple. Reading of FIR and Complainant’s

statement, prima facie shows that while the party was going on in a

dimly lit room, Complainant back slapped Petitioner No.2 assuming

him to be his friend in a case of mistaken identity which led to a verbal

altercation leading to the incident. Complainant and all 3 Petitioners

were 19 years old at the time of incident. Initially it is seen that FIR

was lodged only against Petitioner No.1, but Complainant thereafter

sent legal notices and made allegations against the Investigation

Officer and even filed Writ Petition in this Court due to which it is

argued by Mr. Mundargi that offences under Section 323 and 34 of

IPC were added and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were also implicated as co

– accused persons in the FIR.

6. The academic credentials of all 3 Petitioners are placed

before me. Petitioner No.1 has been admitted to the degree course of

BA Ordinary Global Management (Leadership & Management) in

3 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

Regent’s University London in June 2023 and Mr. Mundargi informs

the Court that he has completed the same. Petitioner No.2 has

obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

from Garden S. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern

California whereas Petitioner No.3 has been an ISCE student of Avlon

Heights International School, Navi Mumbai and has also taken further

academic pursuits. Petitioners are all 25 years old today. Petitioners

persuade the Court to quash the present FIR. I have heard the

submissions on behalf of the Complainant expressing concern through

his Advocate.

7. I have perused the material placed before the Court and the

record of the case. The FIR itself states that Complainant back slapped

the Petitioner No.2 which led to the incident in question. There is no

premeditation or any conspiracy involved neither Petitioner Nos. 2 and

3 conspired with Petitioner No.1 to cause harm to the Complainant. It

is prima facie seen that slapping of the Petitioner No.2 by

Complainant on his neck was a clear case of mistaken identity since

Complainant mistook the Petitioner to be one of his close friends

whom he could not identify in the dark when the party was on and all

present were grooving to the music. This incident occurred in a dimly

lit room where the party was going on. Thereafter Petitioner No.1

intervened and the scuffle took place leading to injury. There is no

mens rea involved qua all 3 Petitioners and therefore levy of charges

4 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

under IPC cannot be sustained in such circumstances. Petitioners and

Complainant equally are highly educated persons hailing from

respectable and highly educated families having no antecedents.

8. Complainant and Petitioners were all celebrating New Year

during which the incident in question occurred at the spur of the

moment. Independent witness statements of friends who had attended

the house party and who were witnesses to the incident in question

have been recorded and considered by me. In my overall view, after

considering the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for

quashing of FIR. In the facts and circumstances of the present case

Complaint of Respondent No.2 is not at all sustainable and allegations

made in the FIR do not warrant application of the stringent provisions

Sections 323 and 324 ready with 34 IPC at all.

9. Considering Petitioners’ age, if Complaint, FIR bearing

No.04/2020, Chargesheet dated 13.11.2021 along with Criminal Case

being Police Case No. PW/7102415/2021 filed in 71 st Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bandra against them is quashed, Court is hopeful that their

family will undoubtedly do their duty to make every effort and

attempt to reform and aid Petitioners in leading a reformed life rather

than keep this proceeding pending and expose them to a criminal

outlook. However on the flip side, if a chance is given to the

Petitioners because of their young ages by quashing the Complaint,

FIR, Chargesheet and Criminal Case mentioned above registered

5 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

against them, then there is a possibility that they will be remorseful

and repent in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the

Court because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a

reformative result rather than being punitive in nature.

10. This Court feels that reform of the accused persons needs to

be considered especially when age of the accused persons are young so

that they get an opportunity / or are given an opportunity to reform,

and earn their livelihood honorably from the perspective of social

integration. This is a chance which the Court must take considering

the young age of the accused persons. The age of Petitioners is very

young. They all are highly educated and may be still pursuing their

education. If these proceedings are continued and if the Petitioners are

tried in accordance with criminal law, remanded to custody,

incarcerated in prison and if convicted remain in prison then there is

every possibility that they might lose faith in the institution and society

at large and may tread the path of criminality or would waste their

lives.

11. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted

disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels

that any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative

approach should be adopted, especially in the case of young offenders

when faced with such quashing Petitions. Hence every opportunity or

to that extent risk should be constructively taken by the Court in the

6 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

case of young offenders – accused persons before committing such

accused to criminal proceedings and give such accused an opportunity

to become good citizens in the Society. These observations are only in

the view of the young age of the Petitioners before me and it is only a

means to explore an alternative to subject them to criminal

proceedings any further so that Petitioners can become good citizens.

12. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred

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.

13. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal1 the Supreme Court laid

down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the

1 1992 AIR 604

7 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

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 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.

14. In the above context, when parties settle their private

dispute or the lis between them 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 can be considered by Court which can

impose costs on the parties.

15. I am of the firm opinion that imposition of costs 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

8 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

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 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.

16. 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 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.

17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

9 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

case, I am of the opinion that all 3 Petitioners for their actions

resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and now

both the parties seeking quashing by consent, the Petitioners should

pay costs. Hence, the 3 Petitioners are directed to pay costs of

Rs.15,000/- each to 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, 3 rd

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 2

weeks from the date of uploading of this order. All Petitioners are

present in Court and through their learned Advocate agree to pay the

aforesaid costs amount to the charity.

18. List the Writ Petition for compliance of the order regarding

payment of costs on 13th October 2026.

19. Advocate for Petitioners shall remain present and show

compliance on behalf of all Petitioners on the returnable date for

compliance. If they do not remain present and there is non-compliance

10 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order,

which shall be noted by the Petitioners.

20. In view of the above observations and findings, the Writ

Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses “(a)” and “(b)” of

the Petition which read as thus:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature under
Article-227 of Constitution of India R/w Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby quashing and setting aside the
impugned FIR bearing No.04/2020 registered with Santacruz Police
Station on 01.01.2020 for offences alleged U/secs. 324 & 323 R/w Sec.
34 of Indian Penal Code, 1960.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature under
Article-227 of Constitution of India R/w Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Sureksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby quashing and setting aside the
impugned consequential Charge-sheet dated 13.11.2021 submitted in
the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71 Court, Bandara
(East), Mumbai and consequential Police Case No. PW/7102415/2021
pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71 Court,
Bandara (East), Mumbai arising out of FIR bearing No.04/2020
registered with Santacruz Police Station on 01.01.2020 for offences
alleged U/secs. 324 & 323 R/w. Sec. 34 if Indian Penal Code, 1860.”

21. Further, I direct all 3 Petitioners to file an Undertaking on

Affidavit in this Court within a period of 3 weeks stating that they

shall not in any manner attempt to harass or settle any kind of score

with the Respondent No.2 - Complainant in view of present Writ

Petition having been allowed and Complaint / FIR bearing

No.04/2020 and Chargesheet dated 13.11.2021 along with Criminal

Case being Police Case No. PW/7102415/2021 filed in 71 st

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra having been quashed and set aside. If

Petitioners indulge in any kind of harassment of the Complainant due

to the above reason then they shall be proceeded against with by the

11 of 12
WP.2203.2026.doc

law enforcement agencies in accordance with law. This order is passed

in order to allay the fear expressed by the learned Advocate Mr. Nitin

Gaware Patil on behalf of the Complainant and to prevent any

backlash of revenge by the Petitioners. I must also appreciate the

conduct with which the present case was argued by Mr. Nitin Gaware

Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 –

Complainant as also Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for the

Petitioners in enabling the Court to decide the present Petition

especially in view of the fact that parties before Court were young

offenders and it is the duty of Court to ensure that young offenders are

given a chance to resurrect their lives notwithstanding any slip that

may have occurred in exuberance of their youth so that they can

become good citizens and serve the society.

22. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the aforementioned

terms.

23. List the present Petition for Compliance on 13th October

2026.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.15
19:34:27
+0530

12 of 12

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…