SIDHARTHA BASUDEVLAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the Criminal complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2/complainant with non-applicant no. 1, an offence being C.R. No. 465 of 2017 punishable u/s. 354 of IPC, Sec. 8 & 10 of POCSO Act came to be registered on 22/11/2017 against the Applicant of which he is seeking quashing of.

(2.) The prosecution story against the Applicant is as under:

(3.) The non-applicant no. 2/complainant at the relevant time was aged about 14 years. Her father was in the business of real estate whereas her mother is housewife, were acquainted to the Applicant through Mr. Shail Sirohi. As such, the services of the Applicant came to have been hired by the parents of the non- applicant no. 2 for imparting tuition/lessons in the subject of mathematics and science to the non-applicant no. 2 since September, 2016.