48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 403 OF 2026 Ravi Indramani Gupta ...Applicant/s Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Kandivali Police Station and anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Girish M. Agarwal i/b. Ms. Nikita Gupta, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. PSI-Sonwane, Pairavi Officer, Kandivali Police Station, present. Mukesh Jaynath Saroj, Victim present in person. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned order dated 6th May, 2026 passed below Exhibit-9 in Sessions Case No.107 of 2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, whereby the learned Judge rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant. 2. It is prosecution's case that on 3rd October 2017, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the friend of the first informant with wooden stick with the intention to kill him. It is alleged that the applicant was part of the group that assaulted the victim. SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.15 15:42:14 +0530 48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. The applicant is 19 years old. The victim, who is present in court, has stated that he has no grievance against the applicant. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that except the statement of the victim, none of the other witnesses including the first informant have referred to the name of the applicant in their statements, and the victim also has not stated any specific role of the applicant in the incident. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that the offence is non- compoundable in nature and hence the consent of the first informant is immaterial at the stage of discharge. There are specific allegations against the applicant as his name has been taken by the injured victim. There is prima facie material against the applicant, and therefore, at this stage his application cannot be entertained and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet and documents produced on record. Except the statement of the victim, none of the other witnesses including the first informant have referred to the name of the applicant in their statements. The victim also has not 48-REVN-403-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam stated any specific role of the applicant in the incident. Considering these facts, continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 6th May, 2026 passed below Exhibit-9 in Sessions Case No.107 of 2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The applicant is discharged in Sessions Case No.107 of 2018. (iii) It is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present application. (iv) The other accused persons cannot claim parity on the basis of the order of this court for seeking discharge. The revision Application is allowed in above terms and disposed of accordingly. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)