LAKSHYA PANKAJ SAHGAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dtd. 31/3/2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO Court), Nagpur, whereby the application (Exh. 16), made by the accused persons for their discharge from Crime No. 454 of 2020, Charge-sheet No. 42 of 2021 registered by Police Inspector of Cyber Police Station, Nagpur for commission of the offence under sec. 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (For Short "I.T. Act") and sec. 15(1) and (3) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For Short "POCSO Act"), came to be rejected.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution against the accused persons that they committed the offences between 3/2/2020 and 11/12/2020 at Mankapur, Nagpur. It is stated that accused No. 1 aired pornographic video on his instagram account from his mobile No. 7288906313. The investigation conducted by the Cyber Cell and Forensic Team revealed that the said porn video was aired by accused No. 1 to his friends, accused Nos. 2 and 3. The accused persons not only watched, but also stored the porn video in their mobile phones and aired the same to their friends. The porn video stored and aired was of one lady, who was dancing and one small child was doing indecent act with her. The evidence further revealed that in the video the lady was seen provoking the child for doing indecent acts by removing the pant of the child and displaying his private part. The information of the crime was received by Cyber Police Station, Nagpur from the officer of Maharashtra Cyber Cell, Mumbai. Based on the said information, the crime came to be registered and resulted into filing of charge-sheet against the accused persons.

(3.) After filing of the charge-sheet, on the above allegations, the petitioners applied for discharge. According to them, there is no evidence to frame charge against them. They are the students. They are young. They don't have any criminal antecedents. They are from reputed family. It is further stated that they are not the creator of the alleged porn video. Accused No. 1 received video from other sources and in turn, he forwarded the same to his friends i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3. According to them, they are not directly or indirectly concerned with the porn video. The offences alleged to have been committed by them have not been made out against them. The case in question is not a fit case to frame charge against them.