Bombay High Court Grants One Week Extension in Aditya Pancholi's Rape FIR Quashing Case
The Bombay High Court, on February 24, adjourned the hearing in Bollywood actor Aditya Pancholi's petition seeking to quash a 2019 alleged rape FIR filed against him. The court granted the complainant, actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, one week's time to file her response, with the matter now posted for the next hearing on March 4.
Legal Proceedings and Defense Arguments
Advocate Prashant Patil, representing Pancholi, spoke following the court proceedings, reiterating that the case dates back to 2019 when an FIR was registered at Versova Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape. Patil stated that the foundation of the case is based on what he described as "fake allegations." He added that Pancholi had moved the High Court with a quashing petition, which had remained pending for several years.
According to Patil, during earlier hearings, no one had appeared on behalf of the complainant. The public prosecutor, representing the State of Maharashtra, informed the court that despite 11 notices issued to Ranaut, she had not appeared before the police station for investigation. On February 12, the High Court heard Pancholi's plea seeking to set aside the FIR, which includes charges under Sections 376 (rape) and other IPC provisions. During that hearing, the public prosecutor reiterated that multiple notices had been sent to the complainant without response, leading the court to issue a fresh notice directing her to appear on February 24.
Details of the FIR and Pancholi's Defense
The FIR against Pancholi was registered on June 27, 2019, at Versova Police Station in Mumbai. In addition to Section 376, the complaint includes charges under:
- Section 328 (causing hurt by means of poison)
- Section 384 (extortion)
- Section 341 (wrongful restraint)
- Section 342 (wrongful confinement)
- Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)
- Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC
Soon after the FIR was filed in 2019, Pancholi maintained that he had been "falsely implicated" in the case. In his petition before the High Court, he has sought quashing of the FIR, citing the Supreme Court's 'Bhajanlal' judgment to argue that the complaint is malicious and legally untenable. The petition also notes that the complaint was filed nearly 15 years after the alleged incident.
Evidence and Chargesheet Status
Advocate Patil further claimed that an individual had met Pancholi prior to the registration of the FIR and that a recording of that meeting remains in their possession. He said the recording has been presented before the court to demonstrate what the defense describes as wrongful intention behind the case.
On the question of whether a chargesheet has been filed, Patil said, "Filing chargesheet or not is a matter of the police and the State of Maharashtra. I can't say anything. Since 2019 to 2026, I don't think there is any evidence in this matter or there is any truth in it. We will challenge it in the High Court, whatever be the discretion on chargesheet, and we are confident that we will get justice."
The case remains pending before the Bombay High Court, with further arguments expected on March 4, as the legal battle continues to unfold in this high-profile Bollywood controversy.
