Dismissed

Mahesh Narayan Nazare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2022WP/2320/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings alleging sexual molestation of a minor. The Court held that contradictions and minor delay were matters for trial, the offence was clearly made out, and extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings in Special Case Child Prot/104/2019 was dismissed.

Mahesh Narayan Nazare Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

55. WP 2320-2021.doc

¶2

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2320 OF 2021

¶4

Mahesh Narayan Nazare .Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents

¶7

Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w Mr. Bharat Gadhavi & Mr. Vikrant Khare i/b. Shama Mulla, Advocate, for the Petitioner Ms S. D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent No. 1 - State

¶8

Mr. Pravin Mengane & Ms Pallavi Karanjkar i/b. Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 17 AUGUST 2022

¶11

P. C.

¶12

. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in Special Case Child Prot/104/2019 pending before the District and Sessions Court, Kolhapur, pursuant to the charge-sheet No. 159 of 2019.

¶14

The Respondent No. 2 – father of the survivor girl (minor), aged 17 lodged an FIR bearing No. 56 of 2019 invoking

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

55. WP 2320-2021.doc

¶17

Sections 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In the FIR, it was stated that on 9 February 2019, the minor was sexually molested by the Petitioner, who was the neighbour of the Petitioner. The Complainant stated that this incident was narrated to him by the minor. A supplementary statement was recorded on 12 February 2019. The minor also gave her statement. In her statement, she has stated that when the Petitioner approached the minor girl, asked for History Book which the girl sought to give at that time she was sexually assaulted. Her parents confronted the Petitioner, who at that time apologized and stated that he will not do such thing again and let the matter be closed. Investigation is proceeded, statements of witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet has been filed. On the last date, the Petitioner had specifically stated that the Petitioner intends to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and not the remedy of filing discharge application.

¶18

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the first statement, father of the minor has given completely different version. It is also submitted that the FIR is lodged with the delay of two days. The Learned Counsel also submitted that in her statement, the minor has given the third version. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is clear that the FIR is lodged only to somehow implicate the Petitioner in a false case. The Learned Counsel submitted that the delay coupled with contradictions,

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

55. WP 2320-2021.doc

¶21

which are apparent on record can be made basis for quashing of the proceedings.

¶22

The Respondent No. 2 supported the statement of the minor survivor girl which was recorded on 12 February 2019. In the said statement, she has given the version as to what happened on 9 February 2019 and how she was abused/assaulted. Though there is a different version given by the Petitioner, the gist remains the same as to the actual incident. Further more, the contradictions, omissions etc. is a matter of trial. The delay is only of two days and the circumstances in which the incident took place, the said delay can always be explained by the prosecution. It is settled that the scope of quashing of the proceedings invoking inherent and extra ordinary jurisdiction, is limited. Going by the statement of the minor, it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out. The arguments advanced before us by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner will have to be advanced at the time of trial as a defence of the Petitioner. According to us, no case is made out for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings.

¶23

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

( N. R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )

¶25

3 of 3

Mahesh Narayan Nazare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Narayan Nazare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Pandurang @ Panda Narayan Garud Vs the District Magistrate and Anr.

Rhat Mohsin Mulla and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohsin Dilawar Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Renuka Santosh Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryankant Anand Mulik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raju Puna Ramole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.