Partly allowed

Sagar Sudhir Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Sept 2021REVN/38/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision application, the High Court quashed the Fourth charge of unlawful assembly framed against the applicant in a POCSO case. The court held the charge unsustainable as only three accused, not five, were registered, making the assembly charge legally untenable.

What did the court decide?

Fourth charge of unlawful assembly quashed; order of learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan dated 15th October, 2020, modified.

Sagar Sudhir Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2021.09.09 14:49:35 +0530

¶3

18-REVN-38-2021.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

REVISION APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2021

¶6

Sagar Sudhir Sanas … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Jagdish Choudhary i/by M/s. Raj Legal for the Applicant. Mr. A.R.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

2 Applicant is facing prosecution for the ofences punishable under Sections 354(D), 143, 336, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 11(1)(4), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012

¶12

( ‘ POCSO ’ for short). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan framed the charge on 15 th October, 2020. Charge

¶13

Shivgan 1/3

¶14

18-REVN-38-2021.odt

¶15

No.4 reads as under:

¶16

“ Fourthly that you accused nos.1 to 3 on the above mentioned date, time and place were the members of unlawful assembly, in the prosecution of the common object of said assembly i.e., to outrage the modesty of minor victim girl and thereby committed an ofence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. “

¶17

3 The learned counsel for the applicant has correctly pointed out that ofence was registered and charge-sheet has been fled against three known accused and not, FIVE. For that reason, charge of unlawful assembly could not have been framed. He would rely on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where victim would allege that the three persons subjected her to sexual harassment.

¶18

4 In consideration of the facts of the case, the Fourth charge, re-produced here-in-above was clearly unsustainable. It is quashed. To this extent the order dated

¶19

Shivgan 2/3

¶20

18-REVN-38-2021.odt

¶21

15 th October, 2020 passed by the learned District Judge-3 & Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Atrocity Special Case No.101 of 2017 is modifed.

¶22

5 Application is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶23

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶24

Shivgan 3/3

Sagar Sudhir Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Sudhir Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shardul Jayesh Mody Vs Dhruvita Shardul Mody and Anr.

Vinod S/O. Ganeshbhai Kevadiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunti Sanjay Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Somnath @ Sonya Raghunath @ Raghuji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hiten Jethalal Gala and Anr. Vs Rbl Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Datta Ashok Dhawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.