Mumbai Court Upholds Aditya Pancholi’s Conviction in 2005 Assault Case, Grants Relief from Jail Term

A sessions court in Mumbai has upheld actor Aditya Pancholi’s conviction in an assault case but modified the sentence, giving him relief from serving jail time. The court ruled that instead of imprisonment, he must pay ?1.5 lakh as compensation to the victim, Pratik Pashine.

The Metropolitan Magistrate (Andheri) had convicted Pancholi in November 2016 under IPC Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and sentenced him to one-year simple imprisonment. The case stemmed from a 2005 parking dispute that escalated into a physical altercation. Pancholi, however, challenged the verdict, seeking leniency in sentencing.

On Thursday, Additional Sessions Judge D G Dhoble partially allowed his appeal. While the court upheld his conviction, it ruled that he would not have to serve the jail term. Instead, he was granted relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, requiring him to pay compensation for his release on a bond of good behaviour.

The case dates back to August 2005 when Pancholi got into a heated argument with his neighbour, Pratik Pashine, over a parking issue. Pancholi reportedly found another car parked in his designated spot and blocked it with his vehicle. Later, Pashine’s watchman informed him about the situation, and they argued over the intercom before Pashine agreed to move his car.

However, when Pashine came downstairs, Pancholi allegedly confronted him and assaulted him. According to Pashine, his father also became a target when he tried to intervene. The next day, Pashine filed a complaint at Versova police station, leading to Pancholi’s arrest under multiple sections of the IPC, including 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (grievous hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 501(2) (defamation).

After years of legal proceedings, the court has now given Pancholi a chance to avoid imprisonment. However, the compensation order ensures that the victim receives some form of justice. While the actor has avoided jail, the case serves as a reminder of the consequences of heated altercations turning violent.