SATISH RAMVILASH PANDEYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                       39. CRI WP-2569-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                               WRIT PETITION NO. 2569 OF 2026

           Satish Ramvilash Pandey                                   .. Petitioner
                      Versus
           State of Maharashtra & Anr.                               .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Mr. Satish Ramvilash Pandey, Petitioner in Person
            Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for State
            Mr. Bhavesh Magam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
            Mr. Prakash G. Kamble, PSI, Kashimira Police Station
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate who is arraigned as

           accused No. 3 in the present case; Ms. Rao, learned APP for State and

           Mr. Magam, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 - Complainant.


           2.       Present Petition is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of

           Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. No. 254 of 2019 dated

           24.04.2019 registered with Kashimira Police Station and the

           consequential proceedings arising therefrom.


           3.       The crime in question, rather the incident occurred at 3.30 a.m.

           on 24.04.2019 and according to the prosecution case, accused No. 1

           owed an amount of Rs. 18,000/- which was asked to be returned back

           by the complainant. There was a verbal argument between them



                                                                                       1 of 4
                                                     39. CRI WP-2569-26.odt


which escalated into a fight and accused No. 1 and accused No. 2

assaulted the complainant. This is what is emanating from the

prosecution case.


4.    The role attributed to accused No. 3 who is the Applicant before

me is that he was physically present and though it is admittedly stated

in one of the witness statements that he tried to pacify when he saw

the police arriving at the incident spot while patrolling, save and

except that, there is no other specific role whatsoever attributed to the

Applicant except alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to carry out

the assault on the victim.


5.    A theory of conspiracy needs to be based on facts and linked to

the motive of the crime in question. Undoubtedly, the statements

recorded by the prosecution prima facie point a finger directly to

accused No. 1 and his relationship rather business relationship with

the victim. However, in so far as accused No. 2 is concerned, a specific

role has been attributed to him of having caught hold of the victim and

in the process, accused No. 1 having picked up a stone lying nearby

and inflicting a head injury on the victim. In such a case, the victim's

statement assumes significance and importance especially when he has

first-hand knowledge of the encounter and the incident in question.




                                                                     2 of 4
                                                                  39. CRI WP-2569-26.odt


6.         On going through the victim's statement, it is prima facie clear

that the Applicant's role, save and except the case of the prosecution

because of his presence is linked to invocation of Section 34 of the IPC

against him and nothing more than that. Applicant's contention as

voiced by him was that accused No. 1 happened to be a college friend

of the Applicant and while returning from the airport after dropping

his brother, en route, he met him and the other co-accused person

when the incident in question also happened.


7.         There is no specific investigation which points prima facie

complicity or for that matter, complicity of the Applicant in the present

crime. I have also heard Mr. Magam, who has taken the labor of taking

me through various witness statements. But in none of the witness

statements read, any specific role has been attributed to the Applicant

before me, namely accused No. 3 to have inflicted any injury or having

supported the acts of the other two accused persons. In this view of

the matter and after perusing the record, in view of the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State of

NCT Delhi and Anr.1, the offense and the FIR qua the present

Petitioner who is a practicing Advocate of this court, stands quashed

and set aside.




1    Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2017 decided on 10 th April 2017



                                                                                  3 of 4
                                                                                       39. CRI WP-2569-26.odt


           8.           Petition stands allowed and disposed in terms of prayer clause

           (a) which reads thus:-

                        "a)              that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order,
                                         direction and quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. No. 254 of 2019
                                         dated 24.04.2019 registered with Kashimira Police Station and the
                                         consequential proceedings arising therefrom, being R.C.C. No. 7043
                                         of 2025 and charges framed order dated 03.03.2021 pending before
                                         the learned J.M.F.C., Mira-Bhayandar Court, insofar as the
                                         Petitioner, Mr. Satish Ramvilash Pandey, is concerned on such terms
                                         as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."


           9.           Petition is disposed.



Amberkar                                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.09.08
                      15:09:48
                      +0530




                                                                                                       4 of 4