Aditya Pancholi appeared before the Bombay High Court on Tuesday as the court considered his petition seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him in an alleged rape case. The hearing marked the 28th time the matter has come before the court and was adjourned to March 4, 2026, for further proceedings.
The case traces its origins to a complaint filed in 2019 by a female actor, who accused Pancholi of rape. The FIR was registered on June 27, 2019, at the Versova Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code along with other provisions. Pancholi has consistently denied the allegations and approached the High Court, arguing that the FIR should be quashed on legal grounds, citing procedural lapses and questions regarding the timing and intent of the complaint.
After the hearing, Pancholi briefly addressed the media but refrained from discussing specifics, stating that the matter is sub judice and that clarity would emerge at the next hearing.
In court, his counsel, advocate Prashant Patil, reiterated the plea to quash the FIR. Patil highlighted that Pancholi’s legal challenge raises multiple issues, particularly the substantial delay in lodging the complaint and the alleged mala fide intent behind it. The next hearing is scheduled for March 4, 2026, where further arguments will be considered.
The public prosecutor representing the police informed the court that the complainant had failed to appear for the investigation despite being served notices on 11 separate occasions. Repeated attempts to secure her presence, the prosecution said, were unsuccessful. In response, the High Court issued a fresh notice to the complainant, directing her to appear at the next hearing, emphasizing the importance of her participation in the ongoing investigation.
A key argument put forth by Pancholi’s defence revolves around the timing of the complaint. According to the legal team, the FIR was filed nearly 15 years after the alleged incident, raising questions about the credibility, intent, and fairness of the allegations. The petition argues that the complaint is “malafide” and seeks judicial intervention to quash the FIR on this basis.
Supporting their plea, the defence cited the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Bhajan Lal judgment, which specifies situations where criminal proceedings may be quashed. According to the judgment, courts may intervene if the complaint fails to disclose a cognizable offence, is filed with mala fide intent, or constitutes an abuse of the legal process. Pancholi’s counsel argued that the present case falls within these parameters.
Patil also revealed that prior to the FIR being lodged, an individual had allegedly approached Pancholi, and the defence possesses a recording of this interaction. The legal team submitted the recording to the court, claiming it highlights questionable intent behind the complaint and strengthens their argument for dismissal of the FIR.
During the hearing, a lawyer appeared on behalf of the complainant and requested additional time to consult with their client and obtain instructions. The bench allowed the request, adjourning the matter to March 4, 2026, for continuation.
As proceedings continue, both sides are preparing for the next round of arguments. The Bombay High Court’s decision on Pancholi’s petition will be closely watched, given the public profile of the actor and the complex legal questions involved. Until a ruling is delivered, the case remains under judicial scrutiny, with the final outcome uncertain.