##PAGE1##

CNR No : HCBM030391652026

2026:BHC-AUG:52608 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2026 Rajendra S/o. Suryabhan Darade, Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agril & Social Worker, R/o. Pagori Pimpalgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahilyanagar. …. Applicant Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Pathardi Police Station, Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahilyanagar.

2. X.Y.Z. … Respondents ……

Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Ms. Sarika Maru Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)

……

CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 22^nd OCTOBER, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 28^th OCTOBER, 2026 JUDGMENT :

1. The applicant has preferred this revision application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 23^rd July, 2026 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Judge (POCSO), Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 17 in Special Case No. 336 of 2025. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 250 of the BNSS seeking his discharge from the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”). The present applicant is accused No. 3 in the said case. The question which arises for consideration is whether the material collected during investigation discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the applicant for failure to report the commission of an offence under the POCSO Act.

2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, the original informant. I have considered the First Information Report, the relevant statements forming part of the charge-sheet, the application for discharge and the order passed by the learned Special Judge. I have also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of AAA v. Linda Sema and Others, 2026 (8) SCC 68, upon which considerable reliance has been placed during the hearing.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the minor daughter of the informant was studying in the third standard in a Zilla Parishad school. On 1^st August, 2025, after returning from school, the child disclosed to her mother that accused No.1 Sanjay Uttam Funde, who was working as a teacher in the school, had subjected her to sexual assault. The child also expressed unwillingness to attend the school. The informant conveyed the incident to her husband. On 2^nd August, 2025, the parents visited the school with the intention of questioning the concerned teacher. However, they could not meet him. The school remained closed on

3^rd August, 2025.

4. On 4^th August, 2025, the informant and her husband approached certain persons from the village, including the present applicant, and narrated the incident concerning their daughter. It is stated that the applicant is the husband of the Sarpanch of said village. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant and the other villagers accompanied the parents to the school. The concerned teacher was questioned about the allegations made by the child. According to the prosecution, he apologized and assured those present that such conduct would not be repeated. It is further alleged that the applicant and the other persons advised the parents not to lodge a complaint with the police and told them that, as they were required to continue residing in the village, they should not invite unnecessary difficulties. The First Information Report was eventually lodged on 7^th August, 2025.

5. During investigation, the statements of the informant, her relatives, the school authorities and other witnesses were recorded. The applicant and three other villagers were implicated for failure to report the offence under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. After com