Salim Vajir PathanAltaf Babulal ShaikhHussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

94.25revn etc(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2025Salim Vajir PathanAltaf Babulal ShaikhHussain Kamal Bhai ShaikhVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZWITHCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2025Salim Vajir PathanAltaf Babulal ShaikhHussain Kamal Bhai ShaikhVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZWITHCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2025Salim Vajir PathanAltaf Babulal ShaikhHussain Kamal Bhai ShaikhShakir Kamroddin ShaikhVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZ…..Mr Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for ApplicantsMr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMs Gayatri Dalvi, Advocate for respondent No.2 (appointed) ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

94.25revn etc(2) P. C. :1.Heard the learned Advocate Mr Bolkar for revisionapplicants and the learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/Statein all these matters.2.These criminal revision applicants pray for quashing andsetting aside the impugned orders dated 30/12/2024, passed by thelearned Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional SessionsJudge-03, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 22 in Special CaseNo.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in Special Case No.235/2023 andbelow Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023, wherein theapplications preferred by these applicants under Section 227 of theCriminal Procedure Code, for seeking their discharge from the saidcases, came to be rejected.3.This Court had already issued notice to therespondent/informant vide its order dated 19/03/2025. RespondentNo.2 is served and learned Advocate Mr Nitin S. Salunke appeared on15/10/2025 and stated that he is having instructions to appear forrespondent No.2 and is intended to file Vakalatnama in all thesematters. Thereafter, these matters listed before this Court on variousoccasions. However, Advocate Mr Salunke has never filed anyvakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 /informant.

94.25revn etc(3) 4.Today also, despite service to respondent No.2, nobodyappears on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence, in order to representrespondent No.2, learned Advocate Ms Gayatri Dalvi is herebyappointed. Ms Dalvi was given time to prepare these matters and shehas prepared them within a short span of time.5.Mr Bolkar, learned Advocate for applicants in all thesematters submits that there are various counter FIRs filed by theaccused persons as well as victim on both the sides. Main disputebetween the parties pertains to damaging of the gate of the Mosquesituated at Umbare, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. Thereafter, FIRbearing FIR No.817/2023 dated 27/07/2023 was initially filed by oneSalim Aziz Pathan against 25 persons for offence punishable underSections 295, 295-A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of IndianPenal Code and under Section 7 of Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013as well as under Section 37(1), (3) and 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.Said Salim Aziz Pathan is a co-accused in an offence against familymembers of victim, wherein it is alleged that the accused personsmolested victim. Another FIR lodged by the victim girl bearing FIRNo.818/2023, dated 27/07/2029 for offence punishable under Sections354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian PenalCode; under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from

94.25revn etc(4) Sexual Offences Act and under Section 66-C of the InformationTechnology Act. On the same day, some persons abused and assaultedone Awaiz Nisar Shaikh on account that he used to tease the girls.Therefore, on the same day, Awaiz Shaikh filed FIR No.819/2023 foroffence punishable under Sections 326, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506 ofIndian Penal Code against family member of victim, alleging that, theyhave beaten him. Again FIR No.822/2023 dated 28/07/2023 wasregistered against applicants and others for the offence punishableunder Section 354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452, 506 read with Section 34of Indian Penal Code; under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Prevention ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 66-C of theInformation Technology Act. Again on 29/07/2023, FIR No.823/2023was registered against the applicants and others for offence punishableunder Sections 354, 354-D, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code; under Section 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Children fromSexual Offences Act. 6.Since allegations in all the FIRs are common, all thesecriminal revision applications are being disposed of by this commonorder.

94.25revn etc(5) 7.For the purpose of discussion, facts and events inCriminal Revision Application No.94/2025 are being considered.Criminal Revision No.94/2025 is concerned with C.R.No.823/2023.Mr Bolkar, learned Advocate for applicants, submits that following ascuffle between both the parties, the family of victim, by taking shelterof minor girl, falsely implicated these applicants in this crime. He thensubmits that as there is no incriminating material against these accusedperson, no offence can be said to be made out against them. Hesubmits that offence registered against accused persons is underSection 354, 354-D, 341, 109, 506 read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code and under Sections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, however, there is no evidence toshow that the applicants have any connection with this crime. Hesubmits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this caseand they have at all no concern. According to him, applicants are alsonot involved in molestation and by no stretch of imagination, offenceunder Section8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from SexualOffences Act can be attracted to them. He further submits that, on thebasis of false allegations, applicants have been implicated in thiscrime. He then submits that present applicants have no concern withthe main accused Awaiz Shaikh. He has taken me through the contents

94.25revn etc(6) of FIR as well as statement of witnesses. Only statement is appearingagainst applicants is that they are about to provide financial assistanceto the family members of the victim in performing her marriage withmain accused Awaiz Shaikh. Apart from this statement, there is noother incriminating material against the applicants. The investigationofficer, after completing investigation has filed charge-sheet againstmain accused and these applicants. Charges are yet to be framed bythe learned Sessions Judge. He further submits that, if the applicantsare permitted to be prosecuted, they would suffer agony of the trial.He, therefore, submits that for such insufficient incriminating material,which is appearing in charge-sheet, the applicants may not be made tosuffer with the trial, and therefore, he prays for discharge of theseapplicants/accused persons from the sessions trial. 8.Per contra, learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondentNo.1/State strongly opposed the instant application. According to him,nature of crime is heinous and there are counter cases that may disturbthe peaceful atmosphere of the society. According to him, applicantsalleged to have committed a serious crime, thereby hurting victimswho are minor aged between 13 and 16 years. He then submits that,applicants having involved in a serous crime, they are liable to faceprosecution trial before the Sessions Court. He further submits that, at

94.25revn etc(7) this stage, this Court is not required to go deep into the matter, as it isonly necessary to consider that, strong suspicion exists based on thematerial on record to justify framing charges against the accusedpersons. Therefore, he supports the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting dischargeapplications of applicants/accused. He further submits that there areallegations that the accused persons attempted to brainwash the victim,compelling her to convert into another religion. Conduct of anotheraccused is telling the victim to elope with main accused, itself showsthat they were intending to commit serious crime against society.Hence, he submits that the instant application, being devoid of merits,may be dismissed.9.Ms Dalvi, learned Advocate appointed for respondentNo.2/informant, having prepared the matter within the short time-frame granted to her, submits that the offence is serious against theminor victim. She further submits that applicants may not be shownany leniency and stringent action against them is required to be taken.She further submits that the charge-sheet shows sufficientincriminating material against accused persons, and therefore, they arerequired to be prosecuted before the Sessions Court. She, therefore,prays for rejection of the instant revision applications.

94.25revn etc(8) 10.After considering the submissions advanced by thelearned Advocates for the respective sides, with their help, I have gonethrough the charge-sheet. In the complete charge-sheet, except thestatement that the applicants were about to provide financial assistanceto main accused Awaiz, in order to facilitate to marry with the victim,there is no any other incriminating material against the accusedpersons. It is to be noted here that the accused persons are beingprosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 341,109, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and underSections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from SexualOffences Act. In order to attract prosecution against the accused,there is requirement of serious incriminating material against them.The complete charge-sheet nowhere discloses any other incriminatingmaterial apart from what is stated therein.11.In that view of the matter, role of the present applicants isnot clearly established as regards the offence registered against them.Hence, in my considered opinion, these applicants may not bepermitted to suffer agony of the trial, that too, under the seriousoffence. Thus, applicants have made out case. Hence, I pass thefollowing order :-

94.25revn etc(9) ORDER(I)All these criminal revision applications are allowed.(II)The impugned orders dated 30/12/2024 in all these criminalrevision applications, passed by the learned Special Judge underPOCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-03, Ahmednagar, belowExhibit 22 in Special Case No.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in SpecialCase No.235/2023 and below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023,rejecting the discharge applications of these applicants, are herebyquashed and set aside. Applicants are hereby discharged from thecharges levelled against them.(III)The bail bonds of applicants, if any, stand cancelled.(IV)Record and Proceedings (R&P), if any, be sent back to theconcerned Sessions Court forthwith.12.Learned Advocate Ms Dalvi for respondent No.2/informant is appointed by this Court. Fees of learned Advocate MsDalvi to be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]sjk