34.WP.4015.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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 6th 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. ] 4 of 4 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.02 11:01:08 +0530