Bombay High Court
KARAN HARINDRA SINGH AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No.251/2026 and all consequential proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, organizers of a musical event at NSCI Dome, sought quashing of FIR No.251/2026 alleging offences under Sections 106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The deceased, a 28‑year‑old doctor’s brother, collapsed at the event and died; post‑mortem indicated death due to consumption of MDMA and alcohol. The legal heirs of the deceased executed a consent affidavit stating an amicable settlement and requesting the FIR be withdrawn to avoid further trauma. The court examined the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and found the incident to be a pure accident, rendering prosecution unwarranted. Accepting the consent terms, the court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings, ordering no costs and disposing of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a consent affidavit and settlement between the parties.
- Whether the alleged offences under Sections 106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, merit prosecution given the circumstances of accidental death.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to entertain the writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 106(1), 289, 3(5)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- quash FIR
- consent affidavit
- accidental death
- drug consumption
- Article 226
- settlement
- event organizers
- criminal procedure
Judgment
34.WP.4015.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4015 OF 2026
Karan Harindra Singh and Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Parvez Memon a/w. Mr. Chirag Naik, Ms. Vaijayanti Sharma,
Mr. Ashish Mishra and Mr. Aman Tiwari, Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Prasanna A. Bhangale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Police Inspector – Santosh Shankar Rasam, Tardev Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Memon, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Bhangale,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is Petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 in connection with First Information Report No.251 of
2026 dated 07.06.2026 registered with Tardeo Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 106(1) and 289 read with Section
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. On 20.08.2026, after hearing Mr. Memon, the learned
prosecutor, and Mr. Bhangale, the following order was passed:-
1 of 4
34.WP.4015.2026.doc
“1. Heard Mr. Memon, learned Advocate for Petitioners and
Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent-State Mr. Bangale, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. The Petitioners are the event organizers. They had
organized some event on 6th June 2026 and incident occurred. It was
organized at NSCI Dome, Worli Mumbai. It was a musical event
where 5000 people had purchased tickets and attended the same.
One of the person who attended the event was the younger brother of
the informant who is a Doctor by profession. In that event, the said
brother of the informant collapsed during the show. He had also
purchased an authorised ticket to attend the show. He was taken
from the site of the incident by the event organizers to Breach Candy
Hospital. He was brought to Breach Candy Hospital on 6 th June 2026
at 9:40 p.m. and at 10:25 pm., he was declared dead. Learned
Prosecutor has placed Post Mortem report before the Court. It states
that the deceased victim was 28 years old and he visited a Concert at
NCSI Dome, Worli on 6th June 2026, he was found in unconscious
state, then immediately taken to Breach Candy Hospital and he was
declared dead at 10:25 p.m. on 06th June 2026. The report
categorically says that histopathological examination carried out on
the following day and chemical analysis report dated 19/06/2026
which was received on 24/07/2026 shows that it was the case of
consumption of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine and Ethyl Alcohol
(Unnatural) which in common parlance is known as MDMA as
apprised by the learned Advocate. The report is returned back to the
learned Prosecutor.
3. The consent affidavit filed by the private Complainant is
appended at page no.47. I have perused the same. The learned
Prosecutor at the outset had requested Court to give two week’s time.
An apprehension was expressed by Mr.Memon that they are in the
process of filing the charge-sheet. This apprehension came to be true
during the hearing because the learned Prosecutor informed the
Court that the charge-sheet will be filed today. It is unfortunate that
in such a matter, the State and the Police Machinery is taking such an
active part. Be that as it may, I direct them not to file the charge-
sheet until the present Writ Petition is determined by this Court. Only
at the request of Ms. Talhar, learned APP, one week time is given to
the Prosecution to take instructions and argue the present matter.
4. List the matter on 1st September 2026. To be listed “First On
Board’ as part heard.”
4. Carrying on further in the aforesaid matter, today, the
matter is listed before me.
5. As usual, Ms. Talhar makes a fervent plea to adjourn the
matter to enable her to get instructions on the possibility of a different
2 of 4
34.WP.4015.2026.doc
angle altogether without being explicit whatsoever. I reject the request
made by Ms. Talhar since adequate time was given by virtue of the
aforesaid order to the prosecution.
6. This Court applied its mind in great detail while passing the
aforesaid order. It is duty of the prosecution to ensure that instructions
are taken expeditiously and especially in matters which are specifically
listed and treated as part-heard matters.
7. What is stated in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the aforesaid
order, prima facie, is the gist of the entire case before the Court.
Parties are before the Court. The Consent Affidavit of the Respondent
No.2 is appended at page No.47. It is executed by the three legal heirs
of the deceased who are all doctors by profession. They have in their
Affidavit in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 stated as under:-
“3. We say that in view of bringing a quietus to the matter and
preserving the memory of the Deceased and to avoid further
emotional and mental trauma and preventing unnecessary
defamation and adverse publicity for the Deponent Family, the
Deponents and the Petitioners have voluntarily and amicably
settled the matter by way of Consent Terms dt. 07.08.2026. We
crave leave to tender the Consent Terms dt. 07.08.2026 during
the hearing of the Petition. We further state that we have
entered into the said Consent Terms of our own free will, volition
and without any coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement
of any kind.
4. Thus, in view of the foregoing we have no objection to the
quashing of the Impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
by this Hon’ble Court as prayed for in the present Petition.”
8. Considering the incident in question and what is stated in
paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the previous order that the incident in
3 of 4
34.WP.4015.2026.doc
question was a pure accident for which the prosecution of the
Petitioner would be unwarranted. In that view of the matter and
adhering to the concerned incident in question as also what is recorded
hereinabove, I am inclined to agree to the request made by Mr. Memon
and Mr. Bhangale both. The Consent Affidavit of the Complainant is
accepted by the Court to put a quietus to the present proceedings. In
view of the above, the Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) which reads thus:-
“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR bearing No.251 of
2026 dated 07.06.2026 registered by Tardeo Police Station and
all consequential proceedings including consequent Charge-Sheet
if any for the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (“BNS”).”
9. No costs whatsoever.
10. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.02
11:01:08 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…