SHASHIKANT RAMDAS MAGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:2906
                                                                    REVN-288-2025.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2025

          Shashikant Ramdas Magar                             ...Applicant

                Versus

          1.    The State of Maharashtra
                Through Investigation Officer,
                MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar,
                Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

          2.    XYZ                                           ...Respondents

                                              ***
           • Mr. A. V. Avhad, Advocate for the Applicant
           • Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent/State
           • Ms. T. V. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 appointed through
             Legal Aid.
                                              ***

                                     CORAM         : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
                                     RESERVED ON   : JANUARY 21, 2026
                                     PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 23, 2026

          ORDER:

          1.           By invoking Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of

          Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C”), present Revision Petitioner assails the

          order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in

          Special Case No. 332/2023 on Application Exhibit 16, thereby rejected

          prayers for discharge from offence under Section 376(2)(n) & 506 of the

          Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), but only discharged the Revision Petitioner

          from offences under Sections 4 & 12 of Protection of Children from


                                         PAGE 1 OF 5
                                                           REVN-288-2025.odt




Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO Act”).


2.         Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner would point out

that, on report of victim, Crime bearing no. 854 of 2023 was registered

with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. That, Revision Petitioner is not

named in the FIR. He pointed out that, present Revision Petitioner is

arraigned as accused no. 2 on the strength of supplementary statement

given by victim that too on 20.09.2023 i.e. after 6 days of FIR and that

he merely happens to be friend of main accused, who had committed the

above offences. It is pointed out that, there is no presence or

participation of present Revision Petitioner at the time of incident.

That, only role attributed to Revision Petitioner is of accompanying the

victim up to the Samarth lodge and nothing beyond that. Learned

Counsel points out that, at that time victim had attained the age of

majority. Therefore, according to him, along with other offences under

POCSO Act, learned Trial Court ought to have discharged him from

offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC also. Resultantly, he prays to

allow the Revision. He seeks reliance on the judgment in case of

Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi , Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

No. 2793/2024.


3.         Learned Counsel for Victim as well as learned APP both

opposes the Application on the ground that, Revision Petitioner is

                               PAGE 2 OF 5
                                                            REVN-288-2025.odt




specifically named and was instrumental in bringing the girl to the

lodge, after which main accused committed offence on the minor. That,

subsequently, charge of 107 of IPC for abetment has been invoked in the

above charge. They both submit that, as role of Revision Petitioner is

equally important in bringing the girl to the main accused, he too has

rightly been arraigned as an accused and there being sufficient material

of even issuing threats to commit offence on her failure to

accompanying, they both justifies the order of rejection passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge.


4.         Learned Counsel appointed for Victim seeks reliance on

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Captain Manjit Singh

Virdhi (Retired) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Others , (2023) 7

SCC 633.


5.         Perused the first information report (‘FIR’) at the instance of

victim dated 13.09.2023 so also supplementary statement dated

20.09.2023. Victim, who gave her age as 20 years, reported police that,

since 2019 she got acquainted with one Pavan Nandu Sonawane and

their friendship grew into love. She claims that, they had snapped their

photo together, which were maintained by him in the mobile. According

to her, threatening to make the photo known to her relatives, he intends

to forceful sexual relations with her and only because of said threats,

                               PAGE 3 OF 5
                                                               REVN-288-2025.odt




she used to accompany him. According to her, in July, 2021 once, while

her parents were taking care of her ailing grandfather in the hospital,

accused Pavan forced his entry in the house and again raped her

against her wish by force. She also claims that, she was called by him at

a lodge on his birthday and that time also he raped her. She further

reported that, 10 days back her marriage was settled but Pavan went

and told the proposed groom side about his love relation and thereby

said marriage was called of. Therefore, she lodged above report with

police but against Pavan alone, on the strength of which crime seems to

have been registered for commission of above offences.


6.          Supplementary statement          of   the   informant   was     got

recorded, as pointed out, on 20.09.2023, wherein, she has named

present Revision Petitioner. Going by the supplementary statement, the

role attributed to present Revision Petitioner is that, he made the

victim girl accompany him to the Samarth Lodge where main accused

Pavan was waiting for her. According to her, he had threatened her that,

if she does not join him, he would also sleep with her and he allegedly

took her on the motorcycle to said lodge.


7.          In the light of above supplementary statement, prima facie

role of present Revision Petitioner is also emerging. Statement is made

across the bar by learned Counsel for Victim that, subsequently charge

                               PAGE 4 OF 5
                                                            REVN-288-2025.odt




for abetment is added, if this is so, it cannot be said that, there is no

material against Revision Petitioner to make him face trial. Hence, I

proceed to pass following order:

                                   ORDER

            Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.



                                             (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)




Umesh




                               PAGE 5 OF 5