Bombay High Court
AMAN AMIN SHAIKH AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that, given the petitioners' young age, the complainant's consent, and the lack of serious offence, the FIR and related proceedings were quashed under its inherent powers.
Summary
The petitioners, three young offenders aged 21, 24 and 26, filed a writ under Article 226 seeking consent quashing of FIR No.351/2025 and related criminal proceedings. The complainant, a 17‑year‑old student, consented to the settlement and the petitioners argued that their youth and academic prospects warranted relief. The State opposed, citing antecedents of one accused and invoking special provisions. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Mohd. Wajid, Naushey Ali, Narendar Singh) and the principle of reformative justice, held that the FIR and the pending Sessions case could be quashed under its inherent powers. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the petitioners were ordered released without surety, and all criminal proceedings were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the consent of the complainant and the youthful status of the accused justify quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether antecedents of an accused preclude the exercise of the Court's inherent power to quash the case.
- Whether the FIR is frivolous, vexatious, or fails to disclose a cognizable offence warranting quashment.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111, 115(2), 308(1)(3), 309(6), 3(5), 351(2)(3), 352, 482
Subjects
- Consent quash
- Juvenile offenders
- Section 482 inherent powers
- Quashing FIR
- Reformative justice
- Article 226
- Criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3062 OF 2026
Aman Amin Shaikh and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Subhash Jha a/w. Mr. Siddharth Jha, Mr. Chetan Gogawale
and Mr. Sumeet Upadhyay, Advocates i/by Law Global Advocates
for Petitioners.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Vishal Krishna a/w. Mr. Shreyas Shirke, Advocates i/by Law
Care Advocates for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Nilesh Nalawade, Kalewadi Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jha, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Talhar,
learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Krishna, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in the matter of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 in connection with First Information Report No.351 of
2025 dated 13.08.2025 registered with Ravet Police Station, Pimpri-
Chinchwad, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 308(1)(3),
309(6), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), 352, 111 read with Section 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Petitioners have been arrested and
are incarcerated since 22.07.2026.
1 of 6
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
3. Parties have filed the present Writ Petition for consent
quashing. The Complainant is 17 years old whereas three Accused
persons who are incarcerated are young offenders aged 21, 24 and 26
years old. The incident in question occurred in a Cafe where freshers’
party of 11th standard students was to be held and for which certain
posters were put up by the Complainant which were torn by one of the
Accused persons who is also student and this led to a friction / scuffle
and exchange of slaps between some of the persons involved therein.
Considering that the parties before the Court are young offenders, I
would refrain myself from delineating any further facts herein lest it
would in my opinion not be appropriate in view of the Petition filed for
consent quashing by the parties before me.
4. One of the Petitioner before me incidentally is studying law
equally Complainant is student as also other Petitioners who are
arrayed as Accused. Petition is filed by three Petitioners who are
arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3. The Complainant’s Affidavit of consent
dated 29.08.2026 is placed before me. The Complainant is present in
Court alongwith family members and I have personally interacted with
Complainant and family members of Complainant who are present in
Court. Considering the request made for Consent quashing by the
parties who are all young offenders in view of their future prospects,
there academic pursuits and education being undertaken by them, I am
inclined to accept the request made by Mr. Jha and Mr. Krishna for
2 of 6
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
consent quashing.
5. Ms. Talhar would however persuade me to note her
objections. She would submit that one of the Petitioner before the
Court is having antecedents rather two antecedents against him and
prosecution also has invoked provisions under Special Act. The said
Petitioner upon whom the learned APP has persuaded me to consider
is infact studying law and in my opinion it would be in fitness of things
that if an opportunity is given to not only this very Petitioner but also
all parties before the Court to be relieved from the ignominy of
criminal prosecution and criminal proceedings in the present matter.
6. While interacting with the elders of the Complainant, I have
persuaded them to take cognizance and understand as to how and
what had happened and ensure that they are able to make even
Complainant and his friends understand the need and necessity for
leading a good life in Society. Petitioners before me are students of
prestigious Educational Instution in Pune namely MIT (WPU) –
Maharashtra Institute of Technology (World Peace University),
Kothrud, D.Y. Patil Law College in Pimpri and equally Complainant is
also undertaking eduction. They have all completed the teen and
stepped in rigours of adult life.
7. In that view of the matter, though a valiant effort is made by
Ms. Talhar, I am unable to consider the prosecution case for rejecting
3 of 6
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
the present Petition. Mr. Jha has placed before me two decisions of
the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid and Another Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others1 and Naushey Ali and Others2 and contend
that the antecedents need not be considered in a case of quashing and
Court should be guided by material on record to whom as to whether
ends of justice would justify the exercise of power under Section 482 in
the given facts. Both the judgements rather ratio in both the
judgements applies to the facts in the present case rather I would like
to apply ratio to this case so as to ensure that parties before me who
are young offenders are given an opportunity without the ignominy of
the criminal proceedings against them.
8. Considering Petitioners’ ages, if they are enlarged on bail and
exonerated, Court is hopeful that his family will undoubtedly do their
duty to make every effort and attempt to reform and aid the Petitioners
in leading a reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison
and expose him to criminal outlook and life in prison. However on the
flip side, if a chance is given to the Petitioners because of their young
age by enlarging them on bail, 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.
1 (2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 219.
2 (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78.
4 of 6
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
9. While considering such Application in such facts, Court feels
that reform and rehabilitation needs to be considered especially when
age of the accused persons is young so that they gets an opportunity /
or is given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his
livelihood honorably from the perspective of social integration. This is
a chance which the Court must take considering the young age of
accused persons. The age of the Petitioners is very young. If the
Petitioners are incarcerated in prison further, 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 his life. Incarceration
in prison exposes many youth to abuse as is shown statistically.
10. 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 in
punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young
offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be
constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders –
accused before committing such accused to further custody and trial
and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen 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
incarceration so that the Petitioners can become a good citizens.
5 of 6
30.WP.3062.2026.doc
11. Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b) which read thus:-
“(a) that in view of there being amicable settlement of the Petitioners
arraigned as accused in FIR NO.351/25 of Ravet Police Station,
Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune with the Respondent No.2 and his
friends viz. Manan Darekar and Tanish Dhore following the
dictum of the apex court in the matter of Narendar Singh Vs.
State of Punjab – (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Naushey Ali Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh – (2025) 4 SCC 78, the proceeding arising out of
the said FIR and consequential proceedings may also be quashed
and set aside;
(b) in the alternative but without prejudice to prayer clause (a)
above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside
the impugned FIR No.351/25 of Ravet Police Station, Pimpri-
Chinchwad, Pune on it’s own merits dehors of there being any
amicable settlement on the basis of the FIR being frivolous,
vexatious and/or not disclosing commission of any cognisable
offence.”
12. Petitioners are directed to be released from jail forthwith
without any surety as they have been arrested on 22.07.2026 in the
aforesaid crime in view of the aforesaid order being passed and all
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.351 of 2025 having being
quashed and set aside including Sessions Case No.7 of 2026 against
them. All parties to act on basis of a server copy of this order
downloaded from the Bombay High Court website.
13. It is clarified that in view of this order, Sessions Case No. 7 of
2026 which is pending in the Court of Additional Judge, Vadgaon,
Maval stands quashed and set aside.
14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
6 of 6
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.09.02
19:39:49
+0530
Checking your session…