$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010389622022 + CRL.REV.P. 686/2022 & CRL.M.A. 21109/2022 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP along with SI Aman Singh. versus SUNIL SAHIL NANHA ....Respondent Through: Mr. Sona Ram Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.09.2026 1. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Ld. ASJ, (Special Judge), POCSO, East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondent has been discharged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (‘IPC’) read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The allegations contained in the FIR dated 04.08.2021 are that the respondent-accused had attempted to talk with the prosecutrix for about 2 months and had also tried to enter into a friendship, which was refused. When the brother of the prosecutrix went missing, the accused met the prosecutrix in a Gali and said that her brother is at his house. Upon the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:33 accused taking her to the first floor of his house, it is alleged, that he forcibly kissed the prosecutrix and touched her breast. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the arguments on charge were heard. 3. The Special Judge vide the impugned order discharged the accused upon relying on the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Paragraph no.12 of the impugned order is extracted as under: “12. A reading of the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that she has totally discredited her FIR and stated that her mother has made PCR call and police came the contents of the FIR are false and the same was given under force and compulsion. A reading of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly narrates that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the accused. It appears from the statement of victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that parents of victim did not approve of the friendship in between the accused and the victim which had led to lodgment of criminal proceedings against the accused. Considering the voluntary nature of the statement as made by the victim before a Judicial Magistrate and taking into account the fact that both FIR and statement under Section 164 Cr.PC are totally contradictory to each other.” 4. In Mathura Das & Ors. v. State,1 the this Court held that at the time of framing of charge the court is not required to examine and assess the material placed on record by the prosecution in great detail. In Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. The State of West Bengal2 has held as under: “15. This Court has recently in Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UP (2024) 10 SCC 651, cited with approval earlier decisions of this Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715; P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398; and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 as under: - *** 22. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 1 2003 SCC OnLine DEL 269. 2 2025 INSC 1373. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:33 (2010) 2 SCC 398: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488], after extracting Section 227CrPC, this Court in paras 10 and 11 held thus: (SCC pp. 401-402) 10. … If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. *** (Emphasis supplied) 5. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Pratima Behera,3 has held as under: “14. …We have no hesitation to hold that such meticulous consideration for presence or absence of clinching material is beyond the scope of power of the Court while considering the question of discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. as also while considering the question of quashing of charge framed by the Trial Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is to be noted that at that stage the materials collected by the prosecution would not mature into evidence and therefore, beyond the question of existence or otherwise prima facie case based on materials, the question whether they are clinching or not could not be gone into.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Bearing in mind the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., there is no justification to proceed against the respondent and frame charges against him. The impugned order does not deserve to be interdicted. 3 2024 INSC 1010. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:33 7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 Tr/Rao This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:33