High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
cwp-914.251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.914 OF 20251) X Y Z (Father of the Victim,2) X Y Z (Mother of the Victim),3) X Y Z (Victim), Minor, Through her father i.e. Petitioner No.1. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar,3) The Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Through its Police Inspector, Sangamner, Taluka-Sangamner, District-Ahilyanagar,4) The President, Child Welfare Committee, Ahilyanagar, Taluka and District-Ahilyanagar,5) Mahesh Wamanrao Shinde, Age-Major, Occu:Police Sub Inspector, Sangamner Taluka Police Station, Taluka-Sangamner, District-Ahilyanagar. ...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
cwp-914.252 ... Mr. Yuvraj S. Choudhari Advocate for Petitioners. Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Satyajeet S. Dixit Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 19th AUGUST 2025DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 14th OCTOBER 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present petitioners are the minor victim and the parents.They say that they are constrained to approach this Court as theinvestigation in the matter has been handled with mala fides.The father of the victim lodged the First Information Report (forshort “the FIR”) for kidnapping, on 28th April 2025 vide CrimeNo.289 of 2025 with Sangamner Taluka Police Station, District-Ahilyanagar. Respondent No.5 was conducting the investigation.The petitioners have made allegations against respondent No.5that he made investigation in such a manner that would behelpful to the accused and when certain persons were requiredto be made as an accused, they have been made witnesses. Thevictim is 15 years and 7 months old, who used to attend MSCITClasses from her house to village Talegaon Dighe. Around 3.00 cwp-914.253p.m. on 28th April 2025, she left the house with her Adhar Cardand did not return till 9.00 p.m. and therefore, the inquiry wasmade and when she was not found, the said FIR was lodged forthe offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita. Thereafter she was found in the custody ofaccused Vithal Nehe on 16th May 2025, at Ambad Bus Stand,Taluka-Ambad, District-Jalna. In fact the passengers on the BusStand were suspicious about the accused and the minor victim inrespect of their unusual behaviour. The said accused was of 32years of age. The passengers came to know that the victim isminor but was introduced as wife of the said accused. Thenthose passengers had taken both of them to Ambad PoliceStation. Information was given to Sangamner Taluka PoliceStation and then on the same day the victim as well as accusedwere brought to Sangamner Police Station in the vehicle of therelative of the accused where they were kept in the same roomwhole night on 16th May 2025. Even respondent No.5 has keptthe victim in Police Station over night with the main accused.Information about victim being found was not given to theparents and her custody was not handed over to her parentsimmediately. Two statements of the victim were recorded byrespondent No.5 for the reasons best known to him, on 17th May cwp-914.2542025. In fact the whole statement was prepared by theinvestigating officer with his own imagination and the victim wasasked to sign on the statement. There was no whisper about thename of the accused who abetted or helped the main accused inthe entire episode. The parents of the victim i.e. petitioner Nos.1and 2 are educated up-to 4th standard only. Respondent No.5 hasthreatened the petitioners and took the statements as per hisown versions. Even respondent No.5 has doubted the characterof the victim on certain occasions. Respondent No.5 had calledthe petitioners to police station on 24th May 2025 and then askedto remain present before Child Welfare Committee, Ahilyanagaron 25th May 2025. Respondent No.5 had given phone number ofone Smt. Anuradha Yewle of Child Welfare Committee and askedthe petitioners to call her. Respondent No.5 handed over the firststatement with the petitioners and asked the petitioners to givethe same statement before the Child Welfare Committee. Thenpetitioners objected to the same and stated that their statementwould be as per second statement that is given on 17th May2025. The petitioners requested that their supplementarystatement should be recorded, however, even the member ofChild Welfare Committee has not helped them. The main accusedis influential. The petitioners have quoted some other incidences cwp-914.255also. One of the same is that respondent No.5 had taken thestatement of one Sachin Gangadhar Bhor, who happens to beclose relative of the main accused. The victim was in fact takenin the house of said Sachin Bhor and said Sachin had theknowledge that the victim is minor, yet in order to show that thevictim is married to main accused, the said Sachin had broughtMangalsutra. He was helping the main accused to show that thevictim is major. Even the changes have been made in the AdharCard and it has been tried to be shown that she is more than 18years of age. Thus there is every attempt to save the mainaccused. 2.Learned APP submitted that now the investigation is overand charge-sheet has been filed against Vithal Anshabapu Nehebefore the Special Court under the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act.3.Here it is to be noted that a question is, now, whether wecan ask further investigation by exercising our powers under theConstitution when the charge-sheet is filed. However, when thepetition was filed, charge-sheet was not filed and therefore, stillwe can consider the aspect. The first and foremost fact to be cwp-914.256noted is, when it was shown prima facie that when FIR waslodged the girl was 15 years of age, then investigation ought tohave been by a lady police officer. Further, respondent No.5appeared in the matter, filed the affidavit-in-reply. He denied allthe allegations against him that he has aided co-accused. Hestates that FIR by the father regarding kidnapping was againstunknown persons. It is stated that it is a matter of record thatthe victim along with the accused was found at Ambad BusStand on 16th May 2025. After receiving information from AmbadPolice Station, the police officers from Sangamner Police Stationhad gone to Ambad Police Station and brought the victim as wellas the co-accused to Sangamner Police Station on 17th May2025. Statement of the victim was recorded as per her say. It isthen stated that after the completion of medical examination,the victim became panic and therefore, she was not immediatelyreferred to the Child Welfare Committee, but was handed over tothe parents. He denies that he had prepared the statements ofthe victim as per his own whims. It fact it was recorded in thepresence of victim’s mother. Supplementary statements ofpetitioner Nos.1 and 2 have also been recorded. He denies thecharge that Sachin Bhor had made changes in the Adhar Card ofthe victim and had brought Mangalsutra for her. cwp-914.2574.The record i.e. the charge-sheet would show thatstatements of witnesses have been recorded. The birthcertificate of the victim has been collected, which shows that sheis minor, aged 15 years and 6 months. The investigation,therefore, ought to have been with every sensitivity. After thegirl was found and her statement was recorded, sections underthe Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have beenadded. However, the matter was then not investigated by anylady police officer. Upon inquiry, it was told that in SangamnerTaluka Police Station there is no lady police officer of the rank ofP.S.I. and above. This is a sorry state of affairs, when suchoffences are supposed to be investigated by a lady police officer.5.Now the mala fides have been pleaded as againstrespondent No.5, the investigating officer. The girl was takenfrom Sangamner, District-Ahilyanagar and it is stated that shewas found at Ambad Bus Stand. There is a general diary entrythat has been collected from Ambad Police Station, District-Jalnabearing date 17th May 2025, showing that victim and accusedwere taken in custody by police head constable with ladyconstable from Sangamner Taluka Police Station. It is stated that cwp-914.258the girl’s name was involved in the offence vide Crime No.289 of2025. However, according to the petitioners, the statement ofthe victim has not been recorded as per her own contentions. Itwas her contention that she as well as the main accused were inAmbad Bus Stand on 16th May 2025 and the passengers hadthen, on suspicion, handed over them to Ambad Police Station.How they were brought to Ambad Police Station, is missing inthe entire charge-sheet. Statement of the police officers fromAmbad Police Station have not been recorded for the reasonsbest known to respondent No.5. Why he had not collected theC.C.T.V. footage from Ambad Bus Stand, and who were thepersons who had taken the victim and the main accused fromAmbad Bus Stand to Ambad Police Station has also not beendisclosed.6.Another fact to be noted is that there is statement of oneSandeep Raosaheb Sonawane and statement recorded bylearned Magistrate of one Sachin Bhor, which would disclose thatat one point of time they were knowing that the girl is minor, yetthey had not taken her to police. There is no proper investigationin respect of them. Now the petitioners contend that on 16th May2025 victim was kept in the same room with the main accused cwp-914.259by respondent No.5. Under such circumstance, certainly furtherinvestigation is required though charge-sheet has been filed byrespondent No.5. It appears that on many occasions the victimhad made complaint or representation to respondent No.5 but hehas hurriedly filed the charge-sheet. In his affidavit-in-reply,respondent No.5 has not disclosed and the charge-sheet doesnot show that statement of the victim is video-graphed as perSection 173(1)(ii)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitaand that he had informed the progress of the investigation to theinformant or the victim as provided under Section 193(3)(ii) ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The investigationcannot be made to shield any accused and therefore, furtherinvestigation is required. Hence the following order:- O R D E R(I)The Criminal Writ Petition stands partly allowed.(II)Taking into consideration the fact that in Sangamner TalukaPolice Station a lady police officer of the rank of Police SubInspector and above is not available, we direct Ms. TejashriVithal Thorat, attached to Kotwali Police Station, Ahilyanagar to cwp-914.2510take over the investigation in respect of Crime No.289 of 2025,registered with Sangamner Taluka Police Station, District-Ahilyanagar and to carry out the further investigation. (III)Though the charge-sheet has been filed before the learnedSpecial Judge under the Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act, the further proceedings in the said matter arestayed till the completion of the further investigation. The furtherinvestigation to be made as early as possible. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/SEP25