[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ronit R/O Dilip Vyas And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, ... on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2708-DB
apl793.2024.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 793 OF 2024
APPLICANTS :- 1) Ronit s/o Dilip Vyas,
Aged 24 years, Occu: Education,
R/o Qtr No. E-40, B.G.P.P.L.
Ballarpur Paper Mill Colony, Ballarpur,
Tah. Ballarpur and District Chandrapur.
2) Shaji s/o Mathai Periyanparmpil
Age 49 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Ballarpur Paper Mill Old Colony,
Ballarpur, District Chandrapur.
..VERSUS..
NON- :- 1) State of Maharashtra,
APPLICANTS through P.S.O., Chandrapur (City),
Chandrapur, Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur.
2) XYZ (Victim) through P.S.O.,
Chandrapur (City), Crime No.
258/2024 dated 22/03/2024, Tah. &
Dist. Chandrapur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.V. Rai, counsel for applicants
Ms. S.V. Kolhe, APP for non-applicant/State.
Ms Shubhada K. Phaltankar, counsel (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 10/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
Mr. M.V. Rai, learned counsel for applicants, Ms. S.V. Kolhe, learned APP
for non-applicant/State and Ms Shubhada K. Phaltankar, learned counsel
(appointed) for non-applicant No.2, the application is taken up for final
hearing at the stage of admission.
2. The applicants herein have approached this Court challenging
the registration of an offence registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(n),
109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 4 and
17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (for
short, the Act of 2012"), vide Crime No. 258 of 2023, registrated with
Police Station Chandrapur City.
3. The applicants come with a submission before this Court that
only allegation raised against applicant No.1 is residing in rented room
and applicant No.2 is landlord. Applicant made available rented room to
the main accused, Sofiyan Iqbal Sheikh. Except this, there is no other
allegation, against applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, according to them, no
offence is made out against applicants on these allegation and therefore
they seek indulgence of this Court in the matter.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, who is
aged about 17 years 5 months, lodged a police report alleging that in the
month of November-2022, she got acquaintance with one Sofiyan Ikbal
Sheikh through social media. After that, they used to meet, and their
friendship gradually developed into the love affair. On 11/10/2023, the
accused namely Sofiyan Iqbal Sheikh took her to the room of present
applicant No.1 and established physical relations with her. The applicant
No.2 is the landlord of the said room, which was rented to the applicant
No.1.
5. It is further alleged that thereafter, on 20/01/2024, the
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
accused No.1 Sofiyan Iqbal Sheikh, asked the victim to meet him. When
she reached the spot where she was called, the said accused took her to the
applicants house and again established the physical relations with her. On
the basis of these allegations, the offence came to be registered against the
present applicants in the matter.
6. Learned APP has strongly opposed the present application and
stated that the case of the present applicants falls within the category of
abetment of an offence. According to her, the victim visited the house of
applicants on two occasions. However, the applicants never obstructed the
main accused from committing the illegal act, and therefore, it is a case of
abetment or instigation to the main accused to commit the offence.
Therefore, considering the Section 16 of the Act of 2012, he is also liable
to be punished in the matter.
7. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 has reiterated the
same contention and prayed for rejection of the application.
8. Learned APP in support of her submission has relied upon the
following case laws as under :-
(a) Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and another
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
(b) Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs State of Gujrat reported
in (1983) 3 SCC 217.
(c) State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh and others reported in
(1996) 2 SCC 384.
(d) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Anurudh and Another reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.
(e) State of Haryana and others Vs Ch.Bhajan Lal and others
reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604.
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
(f) Om Prakash Vs State of Haryaya reported in (2015) 2
SCC 84.
(g) Prashant Gupta and others Vs State of M.P. and others
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2682.
9. The applicants stated that Section 16 of the Act of 2012 deals
with the situation as to what amount to intentionally aiding the offender.
There must be prima-facie any act in order to facilitate the commission of
act of offence. At least presence of the abettor at the time of commission
of offence is necessary. But there are no such allegation against them in
the matter. Hence, no offence is made out against them.
In support of their submission, learned counsel for the
applicants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Asha
Patil @ Asha Sagar Rathi Vs The State of Maharashtra in (Criminal
Appeal No. 118 of 2016 decided on 11/09/2019).
10. In the light of the submissions advanced by both the parties, I
have perused the contents of the complaint lodged by victim as well as the
provisions of Act of 2012. A perusal of the complaint shows only
allegation against present applicants is that twice the applicant No.1 made
his room available to the main accused and same was shared by him with
victim and established the sexual relations with her. Except this allegation,
there are no other allegations against the present applicants.
11. It is pertinent to note that in the entire complaint, it is not the
case that the applicants had called either the main accused or victim that
they can share his room or any time attempt has been made by the present
applicant No.1 to establish relations with the victim. As such, his role is
restricted only to the extent that as and when main accused and the victim
visited to his room, he has made them available the room and went out of
the room.
12. As regards to applicant No.2 who is the owner of the room,
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
there is no material to show that he was any time aware that main accused
visited the room with victim. In respect of applicant No.2, it is the
submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that, nowadays, there
is a regular friendship between the boys and girls and therefore, usually
they visit the houses of each other. Hence, there was no reason for the
applicant No.2 to obstruct the visits of victim alongwith main accused to
applicant No.1. So also only because he is a landlord, he cannot be
implicated in the present matter.
13. It will be relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Anurudh and
another (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
particularly in the case of POSCO has held in paragraph-19 which
reproduced as under :-
19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on
grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby
lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also because
it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ Act. Be that
as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well-intentioned
purport of this order. The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn
articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today
and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such
noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused,
misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of
justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion. Courts have in many
cases sounded alarm regarding this situation. Misuse of the
POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm - on the one end
children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by
poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant
and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with
privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to
manipulate the law to their advantage. The impugned judgment
is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out. Not only are
instances rife where the age of the victim is misrepresented to
make the incident fall under the stringent provisions of this law
but also there are numerous instances where this law is used by
families in opposition to relationships between young people. In
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P. 32, the High Court, noted that
on few occasions concern had been expressed by the Court with
respect to application of the Act on consenting adolescence when
it comes to consensual relationships between teenagers, four
factors have been highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts to
consider:
"A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its
individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the
relationship and the intentions of both parties should be
carefully examined.
B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged
victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship
is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be
factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a
relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful
imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the
protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy
in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an
important factor.
D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely,
ensuring that the application of POCSO does not
inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to
protect."
[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P.]33
The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi34
the Court noted in para 11 of the order that POCSO cases filed at
the behest of a girl's family objecting to romantic involvement
with a young boy have become common place and consequent
thereto these young boys languish in jails. Therein, reference is
also made to an order of the Gujarat High Court35, where the
Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the
prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact that she had left home
of her own accord observed that the application deserved
consideration.
This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the
misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer to Rajesh
Chaddha v. State of U.P36, where this Court lamented the use of
these Sections without specific instances or relevant details,
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
among other cases. It is also to be stated though that no amount
of judicial vigilance against misuse can alone bridge this ever-
widening gap. The first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the
body that translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of
justice at the point of entry. When it comes to matters such as
these, the responsibility of the advocate is profound - to examine
the allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to
counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to refuse
participation in litigation when it can be seen that an ulterior
motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of seeking
protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a principled,
proactive role, that the legislation intended as a shield can be
stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A lawyer who tempers
aggression with calm, reason and rationality, protects not only the
opposing party from unwarranted harm but also the client from
the long-term consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation,
including adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a
principled stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the
legal system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as
enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in the
profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for genuine
disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law is a means
of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this sense, the ethical
vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice, it is indispensable to
it. When they do not do so, the chasm alluded to above widens.
Society also must match institutional reform with moral
awakening. The intent and object of these legislations must be at
the forefront when a person wishes to lodge a complaint
thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a mirror to the
opportunistic and self-centered view that pervades the application
of law. It is only through discipline, integrity and courage that
these problems can be remedied and rooted out. Any legislative
amendment or judicial direction will remain lack-luster without
this deeper change.
We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts
noting the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat
in line with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as
also its progenitors.
Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been
taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment be
circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to consider
initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace inter
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
alia, the introduction of a Romeo - Juliet clause exempting
genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law;
enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons
who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc."
14. In the light of these submissions, Section 16 of the Act of 2012
is perused in the matter. A perusal of the provision clearly means there
should be someone instigated any person to do the offence or there is any
conspiracy on the part of person and he has intentionally aiding by any
act or illegal omission of being that offence. As such, the intentional
aiding by any act or illegal omission is the material ingredient which has
to be established on record. In the absence of these material ingredients,
Section 16 of the Act of 2012 cannot be said to be attracted in the matter.
15. It further states to attract the offence of abetment, the
necessary ingredients would be that abetment by intentional aiding to an
act or illegal omission, which is required to be established by the
prosecution that either prior to or at the time of commission of act of the
offence, such Abettor does anything in order to facilitate the commission
of the act of offence and facilitate the commission of offence. Thus,
presence of the Abettor either before commission of the offence for
facilitating commission of the offence or at the time of commission of and
act constituting the offence is necessary; for making out the offence of
abetement.
However, in the present case, no such act is attributed to the
applicants in the matter. Nor any specific allegations are made in the
entire complaint, which can demonstrate that any act has been done by
the applicant to facilitate the commission of the act of offence either
before the commission or after commission of the offence . Hence, in my
opinion, the Section 16 is not attracted in the matter.
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
16. The judgment relied upon by the learned APP, particularly in
the cases Narindra Singh and others, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, are
not applicable to the facts of the present case. These cases in respect of
explaining seriousness of the offences and the general principals are laid
down as to how the courts should deal with such serious offences. In the
present case, we are dealing with a case where Applicants did not commit
any offences, but being friend of co-accused charged for same offence.
17. In the light of this observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, I have perused the entire complaint and find that continuation of
proceedings against the present applicants, only on the ground that
applicant no.1, being a friend of main accused, provided his rented room,
and applicant No.2 is the landlord of the said room, cannot be implicated
for the offence registered against them in the matter.
18. In my considered opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present applicants would nothing but abused of
process of law. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am convinced that no offence is made out against the present applicants,
and therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following order :-
ORDER
a] The criminal application is allowed.
b] The proceedings bearing Crime No. 258 of 2023 registered
with Police Station Chandrapur City, District Chandrapur
for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n),
109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
Sections 4 and 17 of the Act of 2012 is quashed and set
aside.
rkn
apl793.2024.odt
c] All the pending applications stands disposed of.
d] The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per rule.
19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No orders as to
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J)
rkn
