Bombay High Court
Ravi Indramani GuptaversusThe State of Maharashtra through Kandivali Police Station
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The applicant is discharged as there is no prima facie material linking him to the offence, and continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The applicant, Ravi Indramani Gupta, was charged in a 2018 Sessions case for assault with intent to kill, based on an alleged incident on 3 October 2017. The FIR and witness statements, except for the victim’s, did not name the applicant or attribute any specific role to him. The trial court rejected his discharge application, but the applicant argued that the lack of identification and the victim’s lack of grievance meant there was no prima facie case. The High Court examined the charge‑sheet and found that proceeding against the applicant would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the Court quashed the trial court’s order, discharged the applicant, and clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by these observations for other accused.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant can be discharged when the FIR and witness statements do not specifically name him or describe his participation.
- Whether the consent of the informant is relevant for a non‑compoundable offence at the discharge stage.
Subjects
- discharge
- FIR
- non‑compoundable offence
- abuse of process
- criminal revision
- assault
- intent to kill
Judgment
48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 403 OF 2026
Ravi Indramani Gupta ...Applicant/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Kandivali
Police Station and anr. ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Girish M. Agarwal i/b. Ms. Nikita Gupta, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI-Sonwane, Pairavi Officer, Kandivali Police Station, present.
Mukesh Jaynath Saroj, Victim present in person.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned
order dated 6th May, 2026 passed below Exhibit-9 in Sessions Case No.107
of 2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court,
Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, whereby the learned Judge rejected
the discharge application filed by the applicant.
2. It is prosecution's case that on 3rd October 2017, the applicant
and co-accused assaulted the friend of the first informant with wooden
stick with the intention to kill him. It is alleged that the applicant was part
of the group that assaulted the victim.
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM Page 1 of 3
Date: 2026.09.15
15:42:14 +0530
48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. The applicant is 19
years old. The victim, who is present in court, has stated that he has no
grievance against the applicant. It is contention of learned counsel for the
applicant that except the statement of the victim, none of the other
witnesses including the first informant have referred to the name of the
applicant in their statements, and the victim also has not stated any
specific role of the applicant in the incident. Hence, requested to allow the
application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the offence is non-
compoundable in nature and hence the consent of the first informant is
immaterial at the stage of discharge. There are specific allegations against
the applicant as his name has been taken by the injured victim. There is
prima facie material against the applicant, and therefore, at this stage his
application cannot be entertained and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet
and documents produced on record. Except the statement of the victim,
none of the other witnesses including the first informant have referred to
the name of the applicant in their statements. The victim also has not
Page 2 of 3
48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
stated any specific role of the applicant in the incident. Considering these
facts, continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse
of the process of law. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 6th May, 2026 passed below
Exhibit-9 in Sessions Case No.107 of 2018 by Additional
Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division,
Dindoshi, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The applicant is discharged in Sessions Case No.107 of 2018.
(iii) It is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observations made by this Court in the
present application.
(iv) The other accused persons cannot claim parity on the basis of
the order of this court for seeking discharge.
The revision Application is allowed in above terms and disposed
of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…