30.WP.3062.2026.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.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. ] 6 of 6 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.02 19:39:49 +0530