logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 1989 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
Case No : Criminal Revision Application No. 163 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MEHROZ K. PATHAN
Parties : Adil Versus State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Jaripatka, Nagpur
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: M.V. Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ananta Ghogare, A.P.P.
Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026
Head Note :-
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 17 -

Cases Referred:
Lok Ram vs Nihal Singh and another((2006) 10 SCC 192 : AIR 2006 SC 1892 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 532)

Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-NAG 10477,
Judgment :-

1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. The applicant accused Adil has approached this Court challenging the order below Exh.68 dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Nagpur. The Exh.68 was filed by the accused Adil, for two fold prayers:-

                   “(i) Implead Aryan as an accused in the present case.

                   (ii) Implead Owner and Manager of Raj Lodge as accused in the present case.”

3. Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court after going through the statement of the prosecutrix has allowed the prayer for impleading the owner and manager of Raj Lodge as an accused in the said crime under Section 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”), as the abettors of the offence. The impugned order dated 11.08.2025 rejects the prayer for impleading Aaryan as an accused, without giving any cogent reasons for the same. The learned counsel submits that, in the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix dated 22.01.2023, she has specifically stated about the role of the accused namely Aaryan that he was the person who had brought prosecutrix - victim to Raj Lodge, where the sexual assault was then committed upon her. Despite of that, the learned trial Court has failed to apply its mind to the said fact. Though the prosecutrix, in her deposition, omitted to reveal the exact role of Aaryan, however, the said fact was extracted from the cross-examination of the investigation officer and the portion mark “A” was elicited from the testimony of the investigating officer wherein he had admitted the victim had narrated role of accused Aaryan in bringing her to the lodge.

4. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned trial Court has committed error which is required to be corrected. The learned trial Court has failed to apply its mind to exercise the discretion vested under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore prayed to allow the instant criminal revision and to add Aaryan as accused and proceed against him in the case bearing Special Criminal (Child) Case No.133 of 2023.

5. Mr. Ghogare, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the present application on the ground that the learned trial Court had applied its mind by taking into consideration the entire record of the case, chargesheet, as well as depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the cross-examination of the accused and thereafter come to the conclusion that the manager as well as the owner of Raj Lodge were allowed to be added as an accused in the said crime.

6. The learned trial Court after considering the statement of the victim recorded on 20.01.2023 and supplementary statement on 22.01.2023 and also the examination-in-chief of the victim had come to conclusion that there was not even a whisper of the role played by the accused Aryan in said crime and rightly rejected the prayer. The said application is partly allowed. The impugned order is just and proper and is liable to be maintained.

7. Mr. Ghogare, learned A.P.P. also objects to the maintainability of such an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. at the behest of an accused who is already being tried for the said crime. He therefore submits that such an application, which was not maintainable has been entertained by the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court has partly allowed the said application and has rightly rejected the remaining prayer of the applicant. Hence, the impugned order is also liable to be maintained.

8. I have gone through the impugned order below Exh.68 dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Nagpur. The applicant has prayed for impleading Aaryan as an accused. I have also gone through the initial statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix made on 20.01.2023 and the supplementary statement recorded on 22.01.2023. After considering the deposition of the prosecutrix-victim it appears that the victim has not stated about any role of the accused Aaryan in her deposition. Merely on the basis of the cross-examination of the investigating officer, the trial Court could not have impleaded accused Aryan as an accused in the said crime.

9. The purport of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is that it should appear from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence. It is upon such satisfaction that the trial Court can add any person as an accused. In the present case, the trial Court has recorded a specific reason that there is no whisper of the role of Accused- Aryan; hence, it rejected the application as far as the prayer to add Aryan is concerned.

10. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly applied its mind and held that the evidence brought on record is not sufficient to implead Aryan as an accused in the said crime, and therefore rightly rejected the application.

11. In so far as the objection raised of the learned A.PP. about maintainability of such an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. at the behest of the accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lok Ram vs Nihal Singh and another((2006) 10 SCC 192 : AIR 2006 SC 1892 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 532) has held that:-

                   “11. Power under section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence he is to be tried together with the accused.”

12. Thus, an application at the behest of the accused was also maintained and rightly entertained by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly added the manager, caretaker and owner of the Raj Lodge as an accused in the said crime before the learned trial Court and has rightly rejected the application to add Aryan as an accused in the said crime.

13. In my opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any material irregularity committed by the learned trial Court in exercising its discretion under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order is just and proper and hereby maintained. Criminal Revision Application is dismissed accordingly.
 
  CDJLawJournal