Disputed Documents Can’t Justify Quashing Of Pocso FIR, Rules HC | Nagpur News

Nagpur: Holding that criminal proceedings cannot be set aside on the basis of contested evidence, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court recently refused to quash the case of a minor girl trafficking against a city-based father-son duo, observing that “quashing cannot be permitted on the basis of disputed documents whose validity is itself in question”. Justice Pravin Patil dismissed two applications filed by a chartered accountant and his businessman father challenging the case which was registered at Beltarodi police station. The case involves offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The prosecution case arises from a police raid conducted on Feb 12, 2024, at a hotel where a minor girl was allegedly found with a customer during a decoy operation. Marked currency notes were seized, leading to the registration of offences against multiple accused.Investigators alleged that while the hotel was formally rented to a co-accused, the petitioners were actively involved in facilitating illegal activities for monetary gain. The prosecution relied on witness statements, spot panchanama, and call detail records to suggest their role in supervising operations.The defence argued false implication, contending that the premises were leased and that mere ownership did not establish “knowledge or participation”. It also relied on a prior bail order stating that “even if entire case of the prosecution is accepted, it nowhere shows the petitioners were running a prostitution business”.Rejecting this argument, the judge clarified that “observation made by this court while granting bail cannot be made applicable while considering the case for quashment, the criteria is different”. The judge found the reliance on a memorandum of understanding of Jan 1, 2024, unconvincing, noting that the document was neither part of the chargesheet nor produced during investigation. Pointing to inconsistencies in signatures, absence of financial consideration, and delayed production, the court held that such material could not be the basis for quashing proceedings. “The material relied upon by the petitioners does not rule out the assertions contained in the charges,” the court observed.The judge further noted that call records and statements indicated continued communication and operational oversight, providing sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed. Citing established principles, the judge added that “this court cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage to decide whether the petitioners are involved in the crime or not”. Emphasising the seriousness of allegations involving a minor, the court held that the case was “not a fit case for any interference” under its inherent powers, and dismissed both applications without costs.