Aditya Pancholi appeared before the Bombay High Court on Tuesday as the court heard his petition seeking to quash an FIR filed against him in an alleged rape case. The matter, which has drawn significant attention since it was first registered in 2019, came up for hearing for the 28th time. The next date of hearing has been scheduled for March 4, 2026.
The case stems from a complaint lodged in 2019 by a female actor, who accused Pancholi of rape. The FIR was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, among other sections, at the Versova Police Station on June 27, 2019. Since then, Pancholi has consistently denied the allegations and has approached the High Court seeking to have the FIR quashed.
Speaking briefly to the media after the hearing, Pancholi refrained from commenting in detail on the ongoing proceedings. He stated that as the matter is sub judice, he could not elaborate on the legal process and added that the outcome would become clearer on the next hearing date.
His counsel, advocate Prashant Patil, addressed the developments in court. According to Patil, the petition reiterates the demand to cancel the FIR registered against Pancholi. He confirmed that arguments were heard on Tuesday and that the court has now fixed March 4 as the next date for further proceedings.
Patil stated that the complainant in the case is a female actor and that Pancholi has challenged the validity of the FIR on multiple legal grounds. Appearing for the police, the public prosecutor informed the court that the complainant had not appeared for investigation despite being served notices on 11 separate occasions. The prosecution submitted that repeated attempts were made to secure her presence for the probe, but she did not turn up.
Following this submission, the High Court reportedly issued a fresh notice to the complainant and directed her to appear on the next date of hearing. The court’s directive underscores the importance of her participation in the investigative process as the matter continues to unfold.
A key contention raised by Pancholi’s legal team concerns the timing of the complaint. The defence has argued that the FIR was filed nearly 15 years after the alleged incident. According to the accused side, such a prolonged delay raises serious questions about the intent and credibility of the complaint. The petition claims that the action is “malafide” and seeks quashing of the FIR on that basis.
In support of their plea, Pancholi’s counsel has cited the landmark ‘Bhajan Lal’ judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India. The Bhajan Lal decision lays down specific categories under which criminal proceedings can be quashed if the court finds that the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence, is manifestly attended with mala fide intention, or amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The defence has argued that the present case falls within those parameters and therefore warrants judicial intervention.
Patil further revealed that before the FIR was registered, an individual had allegedly approached Pancholi. The defence claims to possess a recording of that interaction, which they have submitted before the court. According to Patil, the recording has been presented to demonstrate what the defence describes as questionable intent behind the registration of the FIR. The legal team maintains that this material supports their argument that the complaint should be set aside.
Meanwhile, a lawyer appeared in court on behalf of the complainant during Tuesday’s hearing. The counsel sought additional time from the bench, stating that he needed to consult with his client and obtain detailed instructions before presenting arguments. The request for time was acknowledged, and the matter was adjourned to March 4, 2026.
As the case remains pending, both sides are preparing for the next round of arguments. The High Court’s decision on the petition to quash the FIR will be closely watched, given the legal questions involved and the public profile of the accused. Until then, the proceedings continue under judicial scrutiny, with the final outcome yet to be determined.