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 10th 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. ] 4 of 4 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.08 15:09:48 +0530