ABDUL SALEEM S/O. MOHAMMED JABBAR @ ABDUL SALEEM S/O. ABDUL JABBARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:39980-DB
                                                                         51-WP-690-2022.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         51 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2022

           Abdul Saleem S/o. Mohammed Jabbar @ Abdul Saleem S/o. Abdul Jabbar
                                         VERSUS
                           The State Of Maharashtra And Another

          Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents
          Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

                                                            CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                            DATE  : AUGUST 31, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.            This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

          India, the present Petitioner seeks quashment of First Information Report in

          Crime No. 0213/2021 dated 11.09.2021 registered with Himayatnagar

          Police Station, District Nanded, for offences punishable under Sections 302,

          307, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) so

          also seeks quashment of charge-sheet along with order taking cognizance

          and framing charge in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2022 passed by Additional

          Sessions Judge, Bhokar.


          2.            It is the case of the prosecution that on 11th September, 2021 at

          approximately 12:00 PM to 12:13 PM, the deceased, Yash Uttamrao Mirase

          aged 17, was present at the Himayatnagar bus stand along with his friends

          Sohan Sharad Chayal, Om Rathod, and Akash Dhole. An altercation took

          place between them and the accused, Anuj Pavanekar, over allegations of

                                             Page 1 of 4
                                                              51-WP-690-2022.odt



spreading rumors and defaming him secretly, during which Yash slapped

Anuj. Anuj left the spot weeping and returned shortly after, on a motorcycle

accompanied by two friends, Saleem, the present Petitioner and Karansingh,

armed with a knife. Upon returning, Anuj Pavanekar first stabbed Sohan

Sharad Chayal in the stomach/waist area, inflicting injuries. The Petitioner

tried to stop Anuj however, he then ran forward and stabbed Yash Mirase on

the right side of his chest with the knife. Sohan Chayal and the Petitioner

transported Yash on a motorcycle to the Government Rural Hospital,

Himayatnagar for treatment. However, the examining doctor declared Yash

dead on arrival due to the chest injury. The Informant, Uttamrao Khanderao

Mirase, father of the deceased, lodged the FIR against Anuj Pavanekar and

his associates after receiving information and reaching the hospital.


3.          Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the

offence alleged against the Petitioner is punishable with life imprisonment,

there is absolutely no evidence on record to accept his involvement in the

present crime. It is his further submission that save and except the fact that

the Petitioner along with co-accused came to the spot on motorcycle, there

is nothing to indicate that Petitioner shared any common intention with the

co-accused for the purpose of committing murder of the deceased. It is his

submission that on the contrary evidence/statements recorded during the

course of investigation indicates Petitioner attempting to save the deceased



                                  Page 2 of 4
                                                                 51-WP-690-2022.odt



from committing assault on victim and in fact, Petitioner was the one who

took the deceased to the hospital.


4.           Learned APP and learned Counsel for the Informant opposed

grant of any relief to the Petitioner on the ground that the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is serious in nature. Apart from

this, it is their submission that presence of the Petitioner at the spot is not in

dispute and it is a matter of trial to ascertain his involvement in the crime.


5.           Needless to say that FIR so also statements recorded during the

course of investigation, prima facie indicates that the Petitioner was present

at the spot and in fact he came along with co-accused on motorcycle on the

spot, however, statements of witnesses show that co-accused, in spite of

resistance from the Petitioner, caused assault on deceased. Thus, apart from

the evidence indicating present Petitioner attempting to prevent the said

assault, in fact after assault was caused, he was the one who took the

deceased to the hospital. Having regard to these facts, neither direct

involvement of the Petitioner could be seen in the crime nor can he be said

to have shared any common intention with co-accused to cause death of the

deceased. Thus, neither offence under Section 302 of IPC nor any other

offence gets attracted against present Petitioner.


6.           The facts in the instant case makes the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Bhajan Lal and Ors Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

                                     Page 3 of 4
                                                               51-WP-690-2022.odt



[1992 SCC (Cri.) 426] squarely applicable to the present case. No need to

emphasize that even if entire evidence collected, is accepted to be true, no

offence is made out against Petitioner and hence, he cannot be compelled to

undergo rigors of criminal trial. Hence, Petition deserves to be allowed.


7.           In view of above, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clause ‘B’ and ‘BB’.



                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                   Page 4 of 4