2025:UHC:6565 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 463 of 2025 25 July, 2025 Mukesh Bora --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anand Prakash Shrivastav, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG, Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA, Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holders for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani District Nainital in Special Sessions Trial No.53 of 2024, State vs. Mukesh Bora & others, whereby the application of the revisionist-accused for discharge moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the revisionist by respondent no.4 alleging therein that the revisionist committed multiple sexual assaults on her on the pretext of making temporary job as permanent and also threatened her to release her obscene videos all over the internet. In her statement under Section 180 BNSS, 2023 she also alleged that the revisionist also used to touch her minor daughter inappropriately. On the basis 2025:UHC:6565 2 of above an investigation was done and a charge-sheet under Section 376(2)(n) & 506 IPC and Section 9(m), 10 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was filed against the revisionist. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned trial court committed grave irregularity in rejecting the discharge application and framing the charges as there is no material available on record to implicate the revisionist for the alleged offence. He further submits that statement of informant under Section 180 & 183 BNSS prima facie show a consensual relation between the parties and the bare perusal of the FIR shows that the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC are not made out. He also submits that the relations between the parties were consensual in nature and are now being given colours of criminality by respondent no.4 to fulfill her ulterior motives. He submits that the relationship lasted for three years which clearly shows that the cohabitation was consensual. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the FIR was lodged after inordinate delay and on behest of few Advocates. He also submits that respondent no.4 with her ill intentions in her statements under Section 180 BNSS bought out the story of revisionist in-appropriately touching her daughter only to resist the anticipatory bail filed by the revisionist. He also submits that the medico legal report also does not support the case of prosecution. He argues that false and vexatious claims are being made against the revisionist as he is political figure. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the charge-sheet has been duly submitted after a proper investigation and taking into accounts the statements of 2025:UHC:6565 3 witnesses and the informant under Section 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS on which the learned trial court has rightly framed charges against the revisionist. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order by which the learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge application filed by the revisionist does not warrant any interference. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court for such rejection appear to be cogent and well-founded as the discharge application is rejected after perusing the statements of the informant and witnesses under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS and other material available on record, which prima facie make out a case against the revisionist sufficient enough to frame the charges. Hence, no good ground is made out to warrant interference by this Court. 6. It further appears that the present revision has been filed primarily with the intent to delay the proceedings and hinder the expeditious trial of the case. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.07.2025 AK