IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3467 of 2024 Victim X ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Faizan Ansari @ Faizan Raza, Son of Maihruddin Ansari @ Mehruddin Ansari. 3. Md. Maihruddin Ansari @ Mahiruddin @ Mehruddin Ansari, Son of Late Nabi Baksh. 4. Abu Talib Ansari @ Talin Ansari, Son of Md. Mehruddin Ansari @ Mahiruddin. 5. Sultana Begam, Wife of Md. Mehruddin Ansari @ Mahiruddin. All are residents of Village- Bada Karbali Road, P.O. Jarandih, P.S. Bokaro, Jharkhand. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 02/Dated: 16th January, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 15.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad, in Special POCSO (Complaint) Case No. 120 of 2023, arising out of Putki P.S. Case No. 89 of 2022, corresponding to Cyber Case No. 05 of 2022, by which the protest petition for inclusion of the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act against the accused persons, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR lodged by the victim-cum-informant (present petitioner of this case), was registered as Putki P.S. Case No. 89 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(A), 67, 66(E) of the Information Technology Act against the accused Faizan Ansari @ Faizan Raja (Opposite party no.2) and others accused named in the Complaint-Cum- Fardbayan were not charge sheeted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after submission of charge sheet, the petitioner has filed protest-cum-complaint petition on 03.10.2023, which has been registered as Special POCSO Case No. 120 of 2023 against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 praying therein to add offence under Section 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, filing of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken against the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act on 07.01.2023 and thereafter, charges were also framed against the opposite party no. 2 for the offences under Sections 354, 376 (2)(n), 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(E) and 67 of the Information Technology Act vide order dated 30.01.2024. Since prior to two years of lodging of the FIR, there was sexual abuse with the prosecutrix by the accused / opposite party no. 2, but the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024 has dismissed the complaint of the prosecutrix without recording any valid reasons for not proceeding for the offences under provisions of POCSO Act, 2012. The impugned order is absolutely illegal and not justified under law, which is fit to be set aside. Hence, this petition may be allowed. Page 3 of 3 6. Per contra, learned APP for the State has vehemently controverted the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the victim herself has disclosed her age in the FIR to be more than 18 years. The FIR was registered for the offence under POCSO Act, but after investigation, no charge sheet was submitted and no such materials has been brought on record showing that the points raised for the first time in the petition for adding provisions of POCSO Act were ever raised by the petitioner either at the time of passing cognizance order or hearing on the point of charge. The points raised on behalf of the petitioner are subject matter of trial of the case, for which, necessary evidence is also required. Therefore, at the present stage, this petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. 7. Considering the above submissions of the parties and the materials available on record, it is quite obvious that neither at the time of taking cognizance, this petitioner has challenged the cognizance order nor at the time of hearing on the point of charge raised the inclusion of provisions of POCSO Act, which requires some oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, at the present stage of proceeding, the prayer of petitioner does not appear to be justified and fit to be dismissed. 8. Considering the same, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 9. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the aforesaid points at subsequent stage of the proceeding at proper stage, if so advised. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran-Sunil/