Bombay High Court

Prasad Kashinath BadeversusThe State of Maharashtra

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Partly Allowed
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The Court held that Section 12 of the POCSO Act does not apply because the alleged conduct lacks the requisite sexual intent, and therefore the applicant is discharged under that provision.

Summary

The applicant, a 19‑year‑old student, was charged under IPC sections 354‑D, 509, 323 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act for following, verbally abusing, and slapping a 17‑year‑old victim. The Special Judge rejected the applicant's discharge application, holding that the conduct attracted Section 12 of the POCSO Act. On revision, the High Court examined whether the facts demonstrated the sexual intent required under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Relying on the statutory definition of sexual harassment and distinguishing the present facts from cited precedents, the Court found no evidence of sexual intent. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the revision, discharging the applicant under Section 12 of the POCSO Act while allowing the trial to proceed on the IPC charges.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant's conduct constitutes sexual harassment under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Whether the presence of sexual intent can be inferred from the alleged verbal abuse and assault.
Whether the applicant is entitled to discharge under the POCSO provision while retaining liability under the IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 354-D, 509
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 11, 12

Subjects

sexual harassment
POCSO Act
sexual intent
criminal revision
discharge
IPC offences
child protection

Judgment

7-REVN-189-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. NO. 189 OF 2026

Prasad Kashinath Bade
VAISHALI
Versus
ANIL The State of Maharashtra
TIKAM
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w. Mohini R. a/w. Karan Gajra a/w. Sanchita
2026.08.04
16:42:29 +0530 Sontakke, Daksha Punghera a/w. Vijay Singh a/w.Shaik Gufrana Anjum
a/w. Deenesh Ramrakhiani i/by Desai Legal LLP, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w. Saurabh Butala, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026.
P.C. :

1. The challenge in this application is to the order dated

12/02/2020 below Exhibit 23 in Spl. Case No. 859/2020 passed by the

Learned Special Court, Mumbai whereby the Learned Special Judge has

rejected the discharge application of the Applicant.

2. It is prosecution's case that on 12/02/2020 at 5:00 pm when

the victim was returning home, the Applicant followed her. He stopped

her and abused her in filthy language in hindi and thereafter, slapped

across her face causing her injury. He uttered the words " Ae randi kidher

ja rahi ha? mere bare mein kya bolti hai tu ladikiyonko?" The FIR was

registered after the complaint of victim and chargesheet under Section

Page 1 of 4
7-REVN-189-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

354-D, 509, 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section

12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

'POCSO') is registered against the Applicant.

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the

Applicant is 19 years old and he is a student. He has no antecedents. The

incident occurred as a result of some childish fight between them and he

confronted the victim about it, asking her what she said against him in the

school. There was no sexual intent of the Applicant before committing the

said offence. But, this fact is not considered by the learned Special Judge

and has passed impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that

no ingredients of Section 12 of POCSO Act are attracted in the complaint

and requested to allow the application. He relied on the following

judgments:-

(i) Mani @ Subramaniyam vs. State Rep. By The Deputy
Superintendent of Police1
(ii) Ajay Prasad vs. State NCT of Delhit2
(iii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh and Another3
(iv) The State Govt of NCT of Delhi vs. Mahinder Singh Kataria and
Ors.4

4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for

Respondent No.2 that there are specific allegations against the Applicant in

the FIR that he was following the victim who is 17 years old. Thereafter,
1 SLP (Cri.) No. 4516 of 2025 dated 17/07/2026.
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40
3 .In Cri. Revn P. 774/2017 & Cri. M.A. 19049/2017 dated 13/09/2023
4 Judgment of this Court of Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application (APL) No. 225 of 2026 decided on
09/03/2026.

Page 2 of 4
7-REVN-189-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

he abused her in filthy language and slapped across her face. It shows that

he had sexual intention and with that intention, he outraged the modesty

of the victim. The Learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order.

No interference is required. Learned APP further submitted that Section 12

of POCSO Act is attracted against the Applicant as he had sexual intention

while committing the offence and requested to reject the application.

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 relies upon the judgment viz.

Bhushan s/o. Vikasrao Palwe vs. State of Maharashtra 5

5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the impugned order.

The allegations against the Applicant are that he followed the victim and

abused her in filthy language in hindi and slapped her. Admittedly,

Section 354-D, 509, 323 of IPC is attracted by the act of the Applicant.

The question remains whether Section 12 of POCSO Act is applicable or

not. Section 11 of POCSO Act defines sexual harassment of a child and

Section 12 describes the punishment for it. Section 11 specifically states

that a person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child, when such

person exhibits sexual intent towards the child. In the present case, it

appears that Applicant was angry with the behaviour of victim in the

school and he wanted to confront the victim about the said act and on that

count, the incident took place. So from the incident, it does not appear
5 Judgment of this Court at Bombay- Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application (APL) No. 225 of 2026
dated 09/03/2026.

Page 3 of 4
7-REVN-189-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

that the Applicant had sexual intent as described in Section 12 of the

POCSO Act. I have gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for

the Respondent. The facts of the cited case and present case are different

hence, not applicable. No case is made out against the Applicant under

Section 12 of POCSO Act and I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The Applicant

is discharged under Section 12 of POCSO Act. The Applicant shall try

under provisions of Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations

made by this Court and shall decide the matter on its own merits.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…