Victim S vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2688 of 2026

VICTIM “S”

Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Singh Chohan – GA for the respondent/State.

Reserved on : 21.07.2026
Post on : 27.07.2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by
the minor prosecutrix, through her natural guardian and father,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
under Sections 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This petition challenges the
legality and propriety of the order dated 23/02/2026 passed by the
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahidpur, District Ujjain, in Special
Sessions Case No. 04/2026.
2. By way of the impugned order, the learned Special Judge
framed charges against Respondent No.2 (accused) under Section
64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with
other allied offenses. The revisionist seeks the intervention of this
Court to direct the subordinate court to add and frame charges
under the aggravated provisions of Section 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(j) of
the BNS, 2023.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this revision
is that on 24/12/2025, the 16-year-old minor victim (date of birth
being 22/12/2009) lodged First Information Report No.179/2025 at
Police Station Mahidpur Road, district Ujjain against Respondent
No.2, Zuber Mansuri alias Golu. The FIR was registered under
Sections 64(1), 123, and 75 (1) of the BNS, 2023 along with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
relevant sections of the POCSO Act and Section 5 of the MP
Freedom of Religion Act 2021.
4. The prosecution case, as per the investigation, is that
Respondent No.2, who used to transport the minor victim to school
in his vehicle, systematically manipulated, seduced, and established
dominance over her. On 23/12/2025, he allegedly abducted her in
his vehicle, offered her a spiked beverage, and subsequently
committed rape upon her in a deserted area, followed by threats of
making her private photographs viral and pressuring her to convert
her religion.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the
final report (charge sheet) No.13/2026 on 10/02/2026 under Section
193 of the BNSS, 2023. Relying upon the final report, the learned
Special Judge (POCSO Act) took cognizance and framed charges
against Respondent No.2 on 23/02/2026, limiting the charge of rape
to Section 64(1) of the BNS, which has led to the filing of the
present revision petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVISIONIST
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that
the learned subordinate court committed a grave error by framing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
charges only under Section 64(1) of the BNS, completely ignoring
the specific material available on record in the final report. It is
submitted that the subordinate court failed to meticulously peruse
the complete challan and statements.
7. It is specifically contended that the victim is a minor, and
Respondent No.2 occupied a position of control and dominance
over her as the driver of her daily school transport. Therefore, the
facts explicitly attract the aggravated provisions of rape. The
revisionist seeks the addition of charges under Section 64(2)(i) and
64(2)(j) of the BNS, 2023.
8. The revisionist further submitted that if the charges are not
framed under the appropriate sub-sections of Section 64(2) of the
BNS, the minor prosecutrix will be denied complete justice,
resulting in a procedure contrary to the statutory mandate and
constitutional protections afforded to victims of child sexual abuse.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE / RESPONDENT
9. Per contra , the learned counsel representing the State and the
private respondent opposed the revision petition. It is submitted by
the respondents that the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
rightly perused the charge sheet and the accompanying documents
to frame the charges as they currently stand.
10. The respondents contended that the charges framed under
Section 64(1) of the BNS, along with the provisions of the POCSO
Act, are sufficient at this stage of the trial. They argued that no case
is made out for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interfere
with the trial court's order dated 23/02/2026.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
11. Heard the matter and perused the record available.
12. Before delving into the merits of the specific issues raised, it
is pertinent to delineate the scope of revisional jurisdiction under
Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023. Revisional jurisdiction is
inherently supervisory in nature and is not meant to function as a
regular Court of Appeal.
13. Upon a careful perusal of the FIR, the victim explicitly stated
that "I live at the above address and am a Class 10 student at ABPS
School in Nagda. My date of birth is 22.12.2009. I have been going
to school with Zuber Mansuri, alias Golu, who drives a storm
vehicle, for about a year. Other children from Mahidpur also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
accompany me. When I go to school, Zuber makes a lot of effort to
get close to me, talking to me frequently. He constantly
compliments me, hoping to seduce me, and telling me that he likes
me. Zuber even sent me a message on my mobile phone yesterday. I
used to reply to his messages to seduce him and invite him. He had
gifted me chocolates many times and kept doing this. On 14th
November Children's Day, when we got our leave early, Zuber alias
Golu took me in his car for a drive to some deserted place where he
touched me inappropriately in the car. That's when he started
paying more attention to me. He always manipulated me and talked
about me joining his religion. On 22.12.2025, it was my birthday,
so he brought me a chain and tops, Dairymilk chocolates as gifts.
On 23.12.2025, it was 08.30 am in the morning when I went from
home to his car, I was feeling nervous, I told him this in the car, and
Zuber stopped the car and brought me a glass of cold drink. After
that, I started feeling even more dizzy and sleepy. Then Zuber told
me he would drop me home, and with that, he took me back to
Mahidpur Road and parked the car in a deserted area near the
Nagda intersection. He raped me. I was having pain at the place
where I urinated, which I could understand a little at that time. Then
Zuber told me not to tell this to anyone, otherwise you will be
defamed and I also have your photos, which I will make viral. I was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
very scared by his words. Then Zuber was telling me to come with
me, stay in my house, come to my religion, I will take care of you
very well."
14. The aforementioned statement, read alongside the
uncontroverted date of birth of the victim (22/12/2009),
unequivocally establishes that she was a minor, aged about 16 years
at the time of the incident, rendering her legally incapable of giving
consent. Furthermore, the detailed narrative contained within the
FIR meticulously describes a distinct pattern of grooming,
manipulation, and abuse of authority. It is evident from the record
that the accused systematically utilized his daily, unsupervised
access to the minor afforded to him solely by virtue of his
employment as her school transport driver.
15. The court notes that the accused exploited this position of
trust and control over an extended period by showering the minor
with gifts, making premeditated inappropriate physical advances on
previous occasions, and isolating her. On the date of the primary
incident, he influenced his position to offer an allegedly laced
beverage, rendering the minor vulnerable and disabled, culminating
in the alleged sexual assault in a secluded area.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
16. The subsequent acts of the accused namely, issuing threats to
defame the minor by circulating her photographs and applying
coercive psychological pressure to compel her to change her
religion and reside with him further highlights the absolute control
and dominance over the victim.
17. The revisionist has rightly pointed out the omission of
Section 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(j) of the BNS, 2023. The statutory
provision strictly reads as under:
―64. Punishment for rape
(2) Whoever,— (i) commits rape, on a woman
incapable of giving consent;
(j) being in a position of control or dominance over a
woman, commits rape on such woman;‖
18. In cases involving minors, the law regarding consent is
absolute. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent
Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800:-
“Under Section 375 Indian Penal Code a man cannot
even have consensual sex with a girl if she is below the
age of 18 years and the girl is by law deemed unable to
give her consent.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

9 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
19. Applying the aforementioned statutory provisions and
binding precedents to the present facts, it is evident that the victim
was legally incapable of giving consent due to her minority, and the
accused was in a position of situational dominance over her as the
person entrusted with her daily transportation.
20. This Court finds that the charges framed by the learned
Special Judge under Section 64(1) of the BNS are not sufficient and
do not reflect the true gravity of the offenses disclosed in the final
report. The omission to frame charges under the aggravated clauses
constitutes a material irregularity and a patent illegality.
21. The material on record, particularly the FIR and the
statements, prima facie makes out a clear case for framing charges
under Section 64(2)(i) and Section 64(2)(j) of the BNS, 2023.
Refusing to frame charges under these specific sub-sections would
result in a grave miscarriage of justice for the minor prosecutrix.
Therefore, revisional interference is strictly warranted.
22. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, the present
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed .
23. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with a specific
direction to look into the matter again, to add the charges under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM

10 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20383
Cr.R. NO. 2688/2026
Section 64(2)(i) and Section 64(2)(j) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 against the accused, and to proceed with the trial in
accordance with the law.
No order as to costs.

(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 7/27/2026
5:17:10 PM