Mumbai, December 9, 2025: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash an FIR related to the alleged assault of an advocate, underscoring the limits of its inherent powers once a prima facie case exists and investigation is complete. The bench of Justices Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale and A.S. Gadkari declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to instead file a discharge application before the trial court.
The Case. The petition, filed by Akhil Anil Chitre, sought to quash an FIR registered at Dindoshi Police Station alleging wrongful restraint, assault, criminal intimidation, and common intention, lodged by advocate Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta. The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by a transportation company against MNS activists, including the petitioner, over demands to use Marathi in operations. After a court hearing on the matter, the complainant alleged he was accosted and assaulted outside, and later spotted the petitioner leaving the scene in his car.
Arguments. The petitioner's counsel argued the FIR assigned him no direct role in the assault. The State, represented by Acting Public Prosecutor M. M. Deshmukh and APP Vinod Chate, informed the court that investigation was complete and a chargesheet ready, pointing to witness statements implicating the petitioner, CCTV footage showing him fleeing the scene, the complainant's injuries, and the petitioner's history as a “history-sheeter” with other cases registered against him.
Court's Reasoning. The bench held that based on the FIR, investigation papers, and injury certificate, a prima facie case was clearly established. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents including Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P. (2023), the court reiterated that once a chargesheet is ready, an accused should raise defence arguments through a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC before the trial court, not through a quashing petition — the High Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or appreciate evidence at the quashing stage.
“What the Petitioner raises before us is his defence, which can only be tested or tried at the trial,” the judgment stated, dismissing the petition. The court also declined to extend interim protection from arrest that had been in place since 2021, citing the four-year pendency of the petition and the need for the investigation to reach its logical conclusion.
