Aditya Pancholi rape case: Bombay HC hears actor's plea to quash FIR

The Bombay HC heard Aditya Pancholi's plea to quash a 2019 rape FIR. The court has issued a fresh notice to the complainant actress to appear for the next hearing on February 24, after she reportedly failed to appear for the investigation.

The Bombay High Court, on Thursday, heard a petition filed by Bollywood actor Aditya Pancholi, seeking to quash a rape FIR (including IPC 376 and other sections) filed against him in 2019 at Mumbai's Versova police station. Appearing for the actor, advocate Prashant Patil reiterated the plea to be set aside. While Pancholi has been named as an accused in the matter, the complainant is a female Bollywood actress.

HC Issues Notice to Complainant

Advocate Prashant Patil revealed that the public prosecutor, appearing for the police, stated that despite 11 notices sent by the police, the victim did not appear for the investigation. Following the same, the Bombay HC has issued a fresh notice on Thursday, directing her to appear on the next date, scheduled for February 24.

Pancholi's Defence Arguments

The FIR registered against Aditya Pancholi on June 27, 2019, continues to stir controversy. The accused claimed that the complaint has been filed nearly 15 years after the alleged incident, describing it as "malicious." Citing the Supreme Court's 'Bhajanlal' judgement, the petition further sought quashing of the FIR.

Prashant Patil shared that an individual met Aditya Pancholi before the incident, a recording of which remains with them. The recording has been presented in the court, explaining the wrongful intention behind registering it again. The case currently remains pending the court, with the next hearing set for February 24, 2026.

Background of the 2019 FIR

In 2019, the Mumbai Police filed an FIR under charges of alleged rape against Pancholi on the complaint of a Bollywood actress. In the complaint filed at Versova Police Station, Pancholi was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison), 384 (extortion), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Soon after the FIR was filed, the actor asserted about being "falsely implicated in this case." (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)