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 2026:BHC-AUG:39980-DB 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 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