Bombay High Court

SWAPNIL RAVINDRA KOLAPKAR AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed due to lack of identification evidence.

Summary

The petitioners (accused Nos.4‑7) filed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings (R.C.C. No. 296/2023) arising from FIR No. 281/2023, which alleged offences under IPC sections 326, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506. The incident involved an assault by a co‑accused named Rahul, who allegedly called other boys, including the petitioners, to assist. The petitioners argued that they were unknown to the informant, no test identification parade was conducted, the informant’s statement did not enable identification, the investigating agency failed to examine call‑detail records, and CCTV footage supplied by a petitioner was omitted from the charge‑sheet. The State contended that the informant’s statement and injury certificate were sufficient to link the petitioners to the crime. The Court held that, in the absence of any identification parade or other corroborative evidence, there was no basis to attribute the assault to the petitioners and therefore the charges could not stand. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the absence of a test identification parade and the informant's inability to identify the petitioners warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Whether the prosecution's failure to examine call‑detail records and to incorporate CCTV footage into the charge‑sheet violates the principles of fair investigation.
Whether the material on record is sufficient to sustain the charges against the petitioners under the cited IPC sections.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 149, 323, 326, 504, 506

Subjects

identification parade
quash proceedings
Indian Penal Code
evidence
charge sheet
CCTV footage
call detail records
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38752-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

936 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2024

SWAPNIL RAVINDRA KOLAPKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Vinod Y. Bhide, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. The Petitioners (accused Nos.4 to 7) seek quashing of the proceedings

bearing R.C.C. No. 296/2023, pending before the learned J.M.F.C.,

Ambajogai, District Beed, arising out of First Information Report No.

281/2023, registered with Ambejogai City Police Station, District Beed, for the

offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

2. The first informant reported that the incident occurred on 17.07.2023

at about 6.30 p.m., wherein accused Rahul initially abused and assaulted him.

Thereafter, the said Rahul called some other boys on his mobile phone. The

informant has stated the names of two persons amongst those other unknown

persons. The allegation against co-accused Rahul is that, with the help of an

936 WP 124.2024.odt 1 of 3
iron rod, he assaulted the informant on his head, causing a bleeding injury.

There is an allegation against the other accused of having assaulted the

informant.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, admittedly, the

Petitioners and the informant were not known to each other and, as such, it

was absolutely necessary to conduct a test identification parade. He further

submits that even the statement of the informant does not indicate that he

would be in a position to identify the Petitioners if they were shown to him. It

is his submission that, if the case of the prosecution is that co-accused Rahul

had called the Petitioners on their mobile phones, the Investigating Agency

ought to have conducted an investigation with regard to the CDRs of all

concerned, which has not been done. Finally, it is his submission that one of

the Petitioners, who is the Manager of Shriram Finance Company Ltd., was

initially called upon to provide CCTV footage, which he duly provided to the

Investigating Agency. It is his submission that, despite the CCTV footage

having been provided to the Investigating Agency, the same has not been

made part of the charge-sheet. According to him, this circumstance warrants

drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution.

4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the

petition by contending that the statement of the informant is sufficient to

936 WP 124.2024.odt 2 of 3
establish the involvement of the Petitioners in the crime. They also referred to

the injury certificate on record, indicating that the informant had sustained

injuries.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the present Petitioners and the

informant were not acquainted with each other. During the course of

investigation, the informant has never claimed that he would be able to

identify the present Petitioners if they were shown to him. Further, admittedly,

no test identification parade was conducted during the course of

investigation. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the present

Petitioners were the persons who were present at the spot and caused assault

on the informant along with the co-accused. Having regard to the aforesaid

facts, even if the material collected during the course of investigation is

accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the present Petitioners.

6. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

936 WP 124.2024.odt 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…