1 2025:CGHC:1127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2025 Ramnath Yadav S/o Shri Salik Ram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mohanbhatha, Thana-Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special (POCSO) Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 2 (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.183/2024 (Annexure P- 1), framing the charges under Sections 74,75(1)(iv)/75(3), 78(i), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8, 11(iv)(vi)/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. Brief facts of this case are that on 10.10.2024, when the prosecutrix was going to School, on the way near village’s pond applicant caught hold her hand with bad intention, tried to outrage her modesty and also threatened her for dire consequences. After returning her home, she narrated the incident to her parents. Thereafter, on 13.11.2024 complaint was registered before the concerned police station with the averment that since last two months, applicant met her in the way of School and says that he loved her and wants to perform marriage with her. On the basis of complaint, case was registered against the applicant. 4. After registration of the FIR, applicant was arrested and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed. After appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 74, 75 (1) (iv)/75(3), 78(i), 351 (2) of BNS 2023 and Section 8, 11(iv) (vi)/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is bad in eye of law and contrary to material evidence available on record which deserve to be set aside. He further contended that the learned Court below has failed to see 3 that when the first incident is reported and stated by the victim on that day, there was Government holiday which itself sufficient to show that the false case has been lodged against the applicant by the victim with the help of her parents. He further contended that the version of the victim is not supported with the medical evidence and no any external injuries were found upon the victim. Further, statement of the victim is not sufficient to constitute the ingredients of offence against the applicant because except her oral statement there is no material evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. He further contended that the complainant did not report the alleged incident of 10.10.2024 to the police immediately, but lodged the FIR on 13.11.2024, i.e., more than after a month. This delay raises questions about the credibility and authenticity of the complaint. On these basis, it is prayed that the instant revision be allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 may be set aside, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 8. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, prima facie it reveals that offence under Sections 74, 75 (1) (iv)/75(3), 78(i), 351 (2) of BNS 2023 and Section 8, 11(iv) (vi)/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant, therefore, it is clear that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge against the accused under Sections 74, 75 (1) (iv)/75(3), 78(i), 351 (2) of BNS 2023 and Section 8, 11(iv) (vi)/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the charge-sheet dated 12.12.2024 and there is no any ground to quash the charge-sheet and discharge from the charges. 10. Accordingly, the instant revision is hereby dismissed and disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant