1 2025:CGHC:1055-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 60 of 2025 1 - Sohanlal Singraul S/o Late Budhram Singroul Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Bharewa, Post- Jareli, Tahsil And Police Station- Pathariya, District- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Pathariya, District- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. For State : Shri MK Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.01.2025 Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking for quashment of FIR No.235 of 2024 registered against the petitioner at police Station Pathariya, District, Mungeli, for the offence under Sections 75(1)(i)&75(i)(ii) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7&8 of POCSO Act. 2. The allegations against the petitioner as per prosecution case is that, the present petitioner in the capacity of a Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Khapri, used to talk dirty language with the minor daughter of Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.09 17:44:16 +0530 2 complainant, aged about 14 years. It was also alleged in the complaint that conduct of petitioner was almost similar with other girls students and he used to molest them. Thus, a case of molesting has been lodged against the present petitioner. 3. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition as the complainant has not been made party respondent in the petition. Further, some compromise has been taken place between the party, however, the petition has been filed due to some miscommunication. 4. The State counsel however opposes the petition on the ground that prima facie there is material available on record to register an FIR against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was a Teacher in a School and he used to molest the minor girls. There was sufficient material available against the petitioner to register FIR. He further submits that at this stage, all that the court has to see is whether there are sufficient materials available before the court below for registration of FIR and which from the contention of the petition as well as the document enclosed along with the petition itself is evidently established. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, the undisputed facts of the instant case is that, the petitioner was a Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Khapri. He is being prosecuted for the offence under POCSO Act. Yesterday, a petition (WPCR No. 2/2025) came up for hearing before this court which was filed on behalf of son of the present petitioner who was being called by the police personnel for the purpose of interrogation as the applicant 3 (petitioner herein) was absconding. In the said petition, the prayer made by the son of the petitioner was for a direction to the police authority not to harass him unnecessarily. Today, the present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Sohanlal Singraul who is an accused against which FIR No.235 of 2024 has been registered for the offence under POCSO Act. Thought, the counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition on the ground that complainant has not been made party respondent in the petition, however, looking to the nature & gravity of offence as also the conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to permit him to withdraw this petition. The rest of the facts are matters to be adjudicated upon after recording evidence. From the materials available in the case itself prima facie it appears that some role seems to have been played by the petitioner. Thus, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that prima facie the ingredients that are required for registration of FIR is made out. All the other aspects which the petitioner intend to assail are his defence and which can only be looked into after the evidence on either side are adduced and which cannot be looked into at this stage. 6. This court while hearing a petition under Section 528 of BNSS would not conduct a roving inquiry or a mini trial so as to reach to the conclusion as to whether the offence has been made out or not and whether the available materials could lead to the conviction of the petitioner or not. These are the facts which would be adjudicated upon at the relevant time after the evidences are recorded. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner would also be at liberty to address the trial court at the time of framing of charge. 4 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interfering with the registration of FIR against the petitioner and the petition therefore, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder