The Bombay High Court has directed the Pune police to register an FIR within 48 hours in a road rage case where two brothers were allegedly assaulted and abused on religious grounds. The court also came down heavily on Khadak police for refusing to act on the victim’s complaint despite repeated appeals.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad, while hearing the plea of petitioner Shohaib Sayyed, ordered the Pune police commissioner to follow due legal process and issue a show-cause notice to Khadak police station in-charge, PI Shashikant Chavan. The notice seeks an explanation for the delay in registering the case, with a warning of disciplinary action if the explanation is found unsatisfactory. A compliance report has been sought by October 6, 2025.
The court expressed shock at Chavan’s conduct, noting that he not only failed to register the FIR but also skipped the hearing, citing leave, and refused to assist the additional public prosecutor. “Our judicial conscience is shocked by the conduct of the Khadak police station,” the judges remarked, calling the case fit for stringent action.
The petitioner alleged that the incident occurred on a public road in Pune following an argument over vehicle honking. Sayyed claimed he and his brother were assaulted and subjected to religious slurs by Harsh Keshwani, his relatives Karan, Bharat, and Girish Keshwani, along with unidentified accomplices. Medical records from Sassoon General Hospital documented five injuries, torn clothing, and severe trauma, which the court noted as corroborative evidence.
A passerby allegedly recorded the attack on video, though the assistant public prosecutor informed the court that the footage was taken by one of the accused, and that a counter FIR—naming the petitioner as an accused in an attempt-to-murder case—was lodged at Khadak police station on April 27, 2025.
Representing the petitioner, Advocate Debajyoti Talukdar argued that the police’s refusal to act despite medical evidence and repeated complaints amounted to “institutional bias” and violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
