94.25revn etc (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2025 Salim Vajir Pathan Altaf Babulal Shaikh Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZ WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2025 Salim Vajir Pathan Altaf Babulal Shaikh Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZ WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2025 Salim Vajir Pathan Altaf Babulal Shaikh Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh Shakir Kamroddin Shaikh VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. XYZ ….. Mr Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for Applicants Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/State Ms Gayatri Dalvi, Advocate for respondent No.2 (appointed) ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 2026:BHC-AUG:38156 94.25revn etc (2) P. C. : 1. Heard the learned Advocate Mr Bolkar for revision applicants and the learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State in all these matters. 2. These criminal revision applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 30/12/2024, passed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-03, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 22 in Special Case No.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in Special Case No.235/2023 and below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023, wherein the applications preferred by these applicants under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for seeking their discharge from the said cases, came to be rejected. 3. This Court had already issued notice to the respondent/informant vide its order dated 19/03/2025. Respondent No.2 is served and learned Advocate Mr Nitin S. Salunke appeared on 15/10/2025 and stated that he is having instructions to appear for respondent No.2 and is intended to file Vakalatnama in all these matters. Thereafter, these matters listed before this Court on various occasions. However, Advocate Mr Salunke has never filed any vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 /informant. 94.25revn etc (3) 4. Today also, despite service to respondent No.2, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence, in order to represent respondent No.2, learned Advocate Ms Gayatri Dalvi is hereby appointed. Ms Dalvi was given time to prepare these matters and she has prepared them within a short span of time. 5. Mr Bolkar, learned Advocate for applicants in all these matters submits that there are various counter FIRs filed by the accused persons as well as victim on both the sides. Main dispute between the parties pertains to damaging of the gate of the Mosque situated at Umbare, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. Thereafter, FIR bearing FIR No.817/2023 dated 27/07/2023 was initially filed by one Salim Aziz Pathan against 25 persons for offence punishable under Sections 295, 295-A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013 as 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 family members of victim, wherein it is alleged that the accused persons molested victim. Another FIR lodged by the victim girl bearing FIR No.818/2023, dated 27/07/2029 for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; 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 Information Technology Act. On the same day, some persons abused and assaulted one Awaiz Nisar Shaikh on account that he used to tease the girls. Therefore, on the same day, Awaiz Shaikh filed FIR No.819/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 326, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against family member of victim, alleging that, they have beaten him. Again FIR No.822/2023 dated 28/07/2023 was registered against applicants and others for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 66-C of the Information Technology Act. Again on 29/07/2023, FIR No.823/2023 was registered against the applicants and others for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code; under Section 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 6. Since allegations in all the FIRs are common, all these criminal revision applications are being disposed of by this common order. 94.25revn etc (5) 7. For the purpose of discussion, facts and events in Criminal 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 a scuffle between both the parties, the family of victim, by taking shelter of minor girl, falsely implicated these applicants in this crime. He then submits that as there is no incriminating material against these accused person, no offence can be said to be made out against them. He submits that offence registered against accused persons is under Section 354, 354-D, 341, 109, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, however, there is no evidence to show that the applicants have any connection with this crime. He submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have at all no concern. According to him, applicants are also not involved in molestation and by no stretch of imagination, offence under Section8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act can be attracted to them. He further submits that, on the basis of false allegations, applicants have been implicated in this crime. He then submits that present applicants have no concern with the 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 appearing against applicants is that they are about to provide financial assistance to the family members of the victim in performing her marriage with main accused Awaiz Shaikh. Apart from this statement, there is no other incriminating material against the applicants. The investigation officer, after completing investigation has filed charge-sheet against main accused and these applicants. Charges are yet to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge. He further submits that, if the applicants are 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 to suffer with the trial, and therefore, he prays for discharge of these applicants/accused persons from the sessions trial. 8. Per contra, learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State strongly opposed the instant application. According to him, nature of crime is heinous and there are counter cases that may disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the society. According to him, applicants alleged to have committed a serious crime, thereby hurting victims who are minor aged between 13 and 16 years. He then submits that, applicants having involved in a serous crime, they are liable to face prosecution 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 is only necessary to consider that, strong suspicion exists based on the material on record to justify framing charges against the accused persons. Therefore, he supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting discharge applications of applicants/accused. He further submits that there are allegations that the accused persons attempted to brainwash the victim, compelling her to convert into another religion. Conduct of another accused is telling the victim to elope with main accused, itself shows that 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 respondent No.2/informant, having prepared the matter within the short time- frame granted to her, submits that the offence is serious against the minor victim. She further submits that applicants may not be shown any leniency and stringent action against them is required to be taken. She further submits that the charge-sheet shows sufficient incriminating material against accused persons, and therefore, they are required 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 the learned Advocates for the respective sides, with their help, I have gone through the charge-sheet. In the complete charge-sheet, except the statement that the applicants were about to provide financial assistance to main accused Awaiz, in order to facilitate to marry with the victim, there is no any other incriminating material against the accused persons. It is to be noted here that the accused persons are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 341, 109, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences 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 incriminating material apart from what is stated therein. 11. In that view of the matter, role of the present applicants is not clearly established as regards the offence registered against them. Hence, in my considered opinion, these applicants may not be permitted to suffer agony of the trial, that too, under the serious offence. Thus, applicants have made out case. Hence, I pass the following 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 criminal revision applications, passed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-03, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 22 in Special Case No.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in Special Case No.235/2023 and below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023, rejecting the discharge applications of these applicants, are hereby quashed and set aside. Applicants are hereby discharged from the charges 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 the concerned Sessions Court forthwith. 12. Learned Advocate Ms Dalvi for respondent No.2/ informant is appointed by this Court. Fees of learned Advocate Ms Dalvi to be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub- Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk