3-revn-430-2025.doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2025 Rameshwar Bhausaheb Tope ...Applicant/s Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ranjit G. Jadhav i/b. Mr. Gaurav Pandey, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, whereby the discharge application of the applicant is rejected. 2. It is prosecution's case that on 11th June 2023, around 3:00 PM, the applicant outraged the modesty of the first informant on the ground that she was not replying to his messages. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged out of a misunderstanding. As per the prosecution's case, the incident happened at a public place and hence, it cannot be said that it was done with sexual intent. The applicant is a labourer. There are no other witnesses except the mother and father of the victim. No case is made out against the applicant. However, these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed the impugned order, which is erroneous, and requested to allow the application. Page 1 of 2 SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.10.06 18:32:17 +0530 3-revn-430-2025.doc Shubhada S Kadam 4. It is contention of learned APP that the incident happened at a public place. The applicant caught hold of the hand of the victim and outraged her modesty. At the time of the incident, the victim was 14 years old. There is sufficient material available on record against the applicant. Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application. 5. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the complaint was filed due to a misunderstanding. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in that regard, and the respondent has no objection to allowing the application. Hence, requested to pass appropriate order. 6. I have heard all learned counsel, perused the impugned order and documents produced on record. As per the prosecution's case, the incident happened at a public place, but no statement of any independent witness is recorded in support of the prosecution's case. Only the statements of the mother and father of the victim are recorded. Moreover, the father of the victim has filed an affidavit stating that no such incident occurred. Considering these facts, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 6th August, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, below Exhibit-7 in Special Case No.37 of 2023, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The applicant is discharged in Special Case no.37 of 2023 arising out of C.R.No.140 of 2023. The Revision Application is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)