Bombay High Court
Xyz (Complainant) In Fir No. 468/2021 At ... vs State Of Mah Thr. Pso Ps Sitabuldi ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) 904apl1126.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1126/2024
XYZ in Crime No. 468/2021 .Vs. State of Maharashtra through PSO P.S. Sitabuldi,
Nagpur and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant in person.
Mr. D. V. Chauhan, Government Pleader-Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms S. Z. Haider, A.P.P. for non applicants-State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 14, 2025
Heard.
2. The application is listed because the applicant has not
removed office objections. The objections pertain to faint and
shabby pages and also handwritten documents. As such, the
applicant had given an undertaking to remove the same within
10 days on earlier occasion. Similar such assurance was given
on 16.08.2024. The objections were, however, not removed.
3. Applicant-in-person submits that there is an urgency
and accordingly, insisted for hearing the application.
4. Learned A.P.P. submits that since the matter was listed
for removal of office objections, the entire file, which is bulky,
has been not brought today. Accordingly, she made a request to
adjourn the matter for a week.
5. The applicant, however, insisted to hear the
application, since according to her, there is an extreme urgency.
She further states that the proceeding be recorded in-camera.
Her attention was invited to the prayers, to show that in-camera
(2) 904apl1126.24
proceedings may not be warranted. She, however, submitted
that she will disclose the reasons after some time. Accordingly,
A.P.Ps. and lawyers present in the Court were requested to go
out.
6. We have heard the applicant. She commenced the
argument with a statement that she is a sufferer and would
expect relief from the Court, which she is awaiting for last 4
years. She further submitted that she has been to the Supreme
Court four times. Since, we found these submissions to be
irrelevant to decide the prayers, her attention was invited to the
prayers and was instructed to make submissions qua her
prayers. Following are the prayers sought in the application:
"Specific Prayer: In the light of the above
mentioned facts and circumstances of the case
whereby the petitioner is totally hopeless of getting
any justice in ST-196/2022 and in FIR-468/2021,
that's why the petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to grant the following
reliefs:
a) Allow the present application.,
b) Put stay on the trial ST-196/2022 (State of
Maharshtra versus Gaurav Jagnani and others)
pending in the Hon'ble court of District Judge-10
ASJ Nagpur till the final judgement of this
application.,
c) Directions to be given to the Central
Investigating Agency to bring out the CDR(Call
Data Records), records, to seize all the mobile /
laptops ..etc electronic devices of the accused
persons, to recover all datas pertaining to the
vitality of the case and to attain justice in it. (whats
up chats, text messages, recordings..etc), Bank
account details and whatever can be recovered
from their phones and laptops to attain justice and
(3) 904apl1126.24
for the fair trial in ST- 196/2022 in FIR -
468/2021.
d) Directions to be given to the Central Forensic
laboratories for the FSL (Forensic Lab Test) Report
of the all the electronic devices i.e (Mobile phones
containing her personal information) in possession
of the petitioner having evidences against the
accused persons in FIR-468/2021 and the
respondents to be done in petitioner's personal
presence so that the devices and her evidences in it
cannot be deleted or tampered and to be
conducted under CCTV surveillance to protect her
Article 21, privacy and evidences.
e) Directions to be given in the Trial ST-
196/2022 pending in the court of Hon'ble District
Judge -10 ASJ Nagpur to protect the rights of the
petitioner subject to article 21, 14 and 19in the
trial court for attaining justice,for the execution of
the Supreme Court orders& the trial to be recorded
and conducted under CCTV camera surveillance to
avoid further miscarriage of injustices.
f) Directions to be given to the respondent no-1,
4 to file the FIR's against the accused persons in
FIR-468/2021, and others involved in the crimes
against the petitioner.
g) Directions to be given for the 164 CRPC
statement of the petitioner to berecorded again in
FIR-468/2021 as she gave earlier in coercion and
under threats.
h) To Quash the two fake Non Cognisable Reports
filed by the respondent 1, 2 & 3 in connivance with
the accused & their counsels in FIR-468/2021 and
respondents 8 & 9.
i) Grant any other relief in the facts and
circumstances of this which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the best interest of justice."
7. With these prayers, and having heard for some time,
we pointed out to the applicant that the relief sought under
prayer clauses (c), (d), (e) and (f) are in the nature of further
investigation, or the relief that could be granted by the Trial
(4) 904apl1126.24
Court, for which she should approach the Trial Court. As such,
in prayer clause (c), the direction is sought for investigation
through CID, the relief sought, however, can well be achieved
through existing investigating agency.
8. In response, she submits that she will restrict her
argument to prayer clause (b). We have heard her accordingly.
She submits that the judge, who was dealing with the Sessions
Trial, has been now transferred.
9. As could be seen, this submission has no relevance to
stay the trial. Further, her prayer is to stay trial pending present
application. She was informed that the application is being
decided today, to which she said that the trial should be stayed
for four months so that she can avail an appropriate remedy.
She submits that in India, it takes time to reach the Court and
obtain relief.
10. We find these submissions to be wholly irrelevant.
Firstly, the transfer of judge has no concern with the stay to the
trial. Secondly, if application itself is being decided today, there
would arise no question of keeping the trial under stay because
the prayer itself is made to stay the trial pending application.
Moreso because vide order dated 19.08.2024, the request to
stay the trial was refused. Thus, interim relief was refused.
11. The applicant then submits that the trial should be
stayed because the order of Supreme Court has to be complied.
She has invited our attention to order dated 31.01.2024 passed
by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
(5) 904apl1126.24
No.16583/2023, which was filed by the applicant. The Court
observed as under :
"...On hearing the petitioner who has appeared in-
person, we find that the High Court has rightly
observed that if the petitioner is seeking any
prayer(s) with regard to the sessions case pending
before the Sessions court, she shall seek those
prayers before the said Court in accordance with
law and those prayers shall be considered without
being influenced by the disposal of the Criminal
writ Petition by the High Court.
...
...
It is further observed that she is at liberty to
assist the Public Prosecutor who is in-charge of the
trial and make available all documents and facts of
the case to him/her so as to effectively prosecute
the case."
12. Thus, what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated is
that the applicant may approach the Trial Court for the prayers
pertaining to the proceedings and that she is at liberty to assist
the Public Prosecutor concerned.
13. When inquired as to how are these findings relevant
to stay the Sessions Trial, the applicant started making wild
allegations. She submits that she is not allowed by the Trial
Court to enter the Court and that the counsel appearing for the
accused is not allowing her to enter the Court. She made
allegations against non applicant No.9, the Advocate, who is
said to be appearing before the Trial Court that he has made
complaint to the Sessions Court that the applicant is making hue
and cry outside the Court and so on.
14. In our view, the aforesaid submissions are made
without any verifiable material and, therefore, cannot be
(6) 904apl1126.24
acceded to. She has then invited our attention to another
judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jageet
Singh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., Criminal
Appeal No. 632/2022. One of the questions that was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, "Whether the
'Victim', defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of
bail application of accused?"
15. The applicant has drawn our attention to paragraph
20 of the judgment wherein the Supreme Court observed that
the victim's right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right
to know the status of the investigation and take necessary steps
or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings
including at the time of grant or cancellation of the bail were
also duly recognized by the Committee.
16. Hearing such submissions, again a query was made as
to how is this part of judgment relevant to stay the Sessions
Trial, the applicant submits that she should get justice. She
further submits that she has been beaten at various Courts and
including in the premises of this Court. She further submits that
police are coming to her house for no good reason.
17. She was informed that these submissions would not
help her to seek stay to the Trial. Thereupon, the applicant
posed a question, will this Court not quash the First Information
Report filed by non applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in connivance with
accused and their counsel in FIR No.468/2021 and non
applicant Nos. 8 and 9 [prayer clause (h)].
(7) 904apl1126.24
18. We find this question to be illogical, in the sense, the
manner in which the arguments are made where the applicant
has not uttered a word about the contents of the aforesaid FIR,
the expectation of the applicant that this Court will quash the
FIR, would not stand to the scrutiny of law.
19. It is worth mentioning here that the applicant has, in
her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, given clean chit to the accused persons.
She has, by way of prayer clause (g), sought directions to
declare the said statement have been obtained under coercion
and under threat. Such relief, which deals with the allegations
of coercion and threat, without evidence in support, could not
be granted. In any case, if she wants to withdraw from the
statement recorded by the competent Court, the remedy
available will be before the Trial Court where her modified
statement will be tested by the other side in cross-examination.
20. Put all together, we find that there is absolutely no
merit in the application. The application is accordingly rejected.
(M. M. Nerlikar, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Kahale
