Wankhede FIR: Bombay High Court Demands Original License, Scrutinizes Juvenile Justice Act Plea

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court has intensified its scrutiny into the petition filed by Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) concerning a decades-old liquor license. In a hearing that pivoted on procedural diligence and foundational evidence, a division bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and R. R. Bhonsale directed Wankhede to produce the original, now-cancelled liquor license, asserting it as a critical piece of evidence before the matter can proceed.

The court also issued a fresh notice to an Inspector from the Maharashtra Excise Department, the original complainant, ensuring their representation in the proceedings. The case, which intertwines allegations of forgery and cheating with a significant plea under the Juvenile Justice Act, has been adjourned for two weeks, placing the onus on Wankhede’s legal team to furnish the key document that lies at the heart of the dispute.

The Core Allegations: Forgery, Cheating, and a Minor's Consent

The FIR, registered by the Kopri Police in Thane, accuses Wankhede of committing offenses under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 181 (false statement to a public servant), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (dishonest use of a forged document).

The prosecution's case stems from a liquor license for the Sadguru Hotel in Vashi, Navi Mumbai, which was initially issued in the name of Wankhede's late mother. It is alleged that approximately 28 years ago, Wankhede, then a minor, knowingly overstated his age to be included as a partner on the license. This act, the state argues, constitutes a criminal offense. The Thane Collector permanently cancelled the license in 2022, which precipitated the registration of the FIR.

Appearing for Wankhede, Senior Advocates Aabad Ponda and Rizwan Merchant vigorously contested the FIR, labelling it as a baseless and politically motivated action. Ponda submitted that the entire case hinges on an affidavit signed by Wankhede when he was just a few months shy of his 18th birthday.

"He was above 17, just a few months short of 18. The licence was valid and in his mother’s name; their case is that she added his name when he was a minor,” Ponda clarified to the bench when questioned about Wankhede's exact age at the time of the alleged offense.

This admission of Wankhede’s minority status forms the bedrock of his defense, which invokes the protections afforded by juvenile justice jurisprudence.

A Jurisdictional Challenge: The Juvenile Justice Act Defense

A significant legal argument advanced by Wankhede’s counsel is the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. His petition contends that as an undisputed minor of 17 at the time, any alleged offense must be adjudicated by the Juvenile Justice Board, not the regular criminal courts. The plea seeks to divest the police and the Magistrate’s court of jurisdiction over the matter.

The petition eloquently argues the lack of requisite mens rea , or criminal intent, on the part of a minor. It states:

"The law of the land does not acknowledge that a minor had the capacity in order to orchestrate the entire crime at hand. In fact, the Petitioner was merely in college when the alleged offence is said to have taken place. That, the Petitioner was merely signing documents where he was asked by his mother to sign."

This line of reasoning presents a fundamental challenge to the prosecution. For legal practitioners, the court's eventual determination on this issue will be crucial. It will test the retrospective application of juvenile justice principles to an individual who is now a senior public servant, for an act committed nearly three decades ago. The argument forces a distinction between a procedural irregularity, potentially orchestrated by an adult (his mother), and a criminal conspiracy involving a minor.

Courtroom Exchange and a Demand for Evidence

The bench’s focus during the hearing was less on the abstract legal arguments and more on the foundational document at the center of the controversy—the liquor license itself. When the judges asked to see a copy, Ponda initially suggested that the police, as the prosecuting agency, should possess it.

The bench was firm in its response, shifting the evidentiary burden squarely onto the petitioner.

“You will have it. It is your licence,” the judges stated, making it clear that Wankhede, as the party seeking relief, must produce the document upon which the entire case is built.

This judicial directive underscores a fundamental tenet of litigation: a party approaching the court for relief must come with clean hands and all relevant evidence. Wankhede’s team was granted time to amend their petition and place the license on record, a move that will be critical for the next hearing.

Allegations of Malice and Political Vendetta

Wankhede’s counsel did not shy away from alleging that the FIR is a product of malicious prosecution. Ponda reminded the court that Wankhede had been granted interim protection from coercive action in February 2022. He argued that the FIR was a direct consequence of his client's actions as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).

Specifically, Ponda linked the case to Wankhede’s high-profile arrest of the son-in-law of Nawab Malik, a former state minister and senior NCP leader. He claimed that following this arrest, Malik orchestrated a "sustained campaign" against Wankhede, culminating in the registration of this FIR.

While allegations of political motivation are common in high-profile cases, the court will have to assess whether there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the state machinery was misused. The timing of the FIR, lodged years after the alleged offense, will likely be a factor in this consideration.

Conclusion and Legal Implications

The Bombay High Court's handling of the case so far highlights a meticulous, evidence-first approach. By demanding the original license, the court is ensuring that any decision on quashing the FIR is based on a complete and verified factual matrix.

For the legal community, this case presents several points of interest:

• Juvenile Justice Jurisdiction: The court's ruling on whether the Juvenile Justice Act can be invoked to quash an FIR against an adult for a decades-old offense will have significant precedential value.
• Quashing Petitions and Malice: The case serves as a test for the threshold of evidence required to prove that an FIR is motivated by malice, especially when filed against a public servant involved in politically sensitive investigations.
• Evidentiary Burden: The bench's insistence on the petitioner producing the primary document reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking the court's intervention.

As the matter is set to be heard again in two weeks, all eyes will be on the liquor license and the legal arguments that will flow from its presentation in court. The outcome will not only determine the fate of Sameer Wankhede but also contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on juvenile justice and the court's inherent power to prevent the abuse of the legal process.