The High Court refused to set aside the learned Magistrate's order directing further investigation in a POCSO-related FIR. The court held that the order was legal and had already been acted upon with the case committed to the Special Court, finding no merit in the challenge.
The criminal writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 35-wp 428-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2021
Vinod Vijaykumar Pawar
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another
.. Respondents
Mr. Nitin L. Dhobale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Rahul Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 20th APRIL, 2023.
P. C. :-
. This petition is filed by the accused facing trial for the offence punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO”) Act and challenging the order of further investigation passed by the learned 2nd J.M.F.C., Ambajogai dated 18.11.2016 in view of the evidence that was recorded in R.C.C. No. 336/2015. The facts in short are that, the FIR came to be lodged with the Police Station, Ambajogai bearing FIR No. 69/2015 on 17.06.2015. It is alleged in the said FIR by the informant that, in the night dated 16.06.2015 this accused came to his house at around 11.00-11.30 p.m. He slept near his daughter. On that, daughter of the informant got up and started shouting. The informant and his wife
1 of 3
2 35-wp 428-2021.odt
who were sleeping in another room rushed to the room where his daughter and mother were sleeping. They found that this accused on shouting ran away. On this information, the offence was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed and R.C.C. No. 336/2015 was lodged. While recording the evidence of informant, the learned Trial Court found that since the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, the Court suo motu passed the order directing further investigation. It is this order which is challenged in this Court by way of this petition.
2 of 3
3 35-wp 428-2021.odt
story. He therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2019.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's order directing further investigation suo motu in a POCSO case.
Whether the impugned order directing further investigation is illegal since no witness initially attracted POCSO sections.
Whether the High Court is barred from setting aside the order as it is already acted upon and the case committed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Vijaykumar Pawar
The State of Maharashtra
KISHORE C. SANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
