1 2025:CGHC:28367-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 349 of 2025 Raju Sardar S/o Late Prafull Sardar Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Agriculturist And Halwayee, R/o Durgapur Colony, Police Station And Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Of Police Department Of Home Affairs, Police Head Quarter, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Baijnathpara, Near Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Navin Biswas S/o Shri Bishnu Prasad Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Chatirma, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar (Ambikapur), District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.27 18:38:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs :- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 03 (SP Raigarh) and Respondent No. 04 (Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh) also to include and register the case with regard to incident dated 08.04.2025 with the victim (Minor daughter of petitioner) against the accused / Respondent no.05 for the offence punishable under the provision of "The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012" for committing sexual harassment with the victim, along with U/s. 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Correspondence offence U/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) vide Crime No. 0091/2025 Dated 10.04.2025, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court 3 deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 3. The facts of the case are that the victim is the daughter of petitioner who is a minor girl, having date of birth as 15.04.2007 which reflects from the certificate of the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur. The aforesaid certificate has already been seized by the Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh/respondent No.4. On bare perusal of the school certificate of the victim (daughter of the petitioner) it is crystal clear that the date of incident i.e. 08.04.2025, she was below 18 years of age i.e. about 17 years 11 months 24 days, therefore the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is attracted in the present case. The petitioner made various requests to respondent No.4 to take appropriate action under the POCSO Act and further requested to recover the victim / daughter, but respondent No.4 did not respond the request of the petitioner. On the other hand, the Police has registered the case under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 of committing kidnapping only and without recovering the victim (i.e. daughter of the petitioner) and no action has been taken against the accused / respondent No.5. 4. Looking to the inaction on part of respondent No.4, the petitioner made a complaint before respondent No.3 on 03.05.2025 to register the case under the POSCO Act against the accused / respondent No.05, but till date no action has been taken against 4 respondent No.05. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 has kidnapped the minor daughter of the petitioner on 08.04.2025 (Night) from village Durgapur and committed sexual harassment. On the date of incident the victim was below 18 years (i.e. 17 years, 11 months and 24 days), therefore the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for committing sexual harassment with the victim is attracted. He further submits that the petitioner has requested the Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh to register the case under the POCSO Act, but orally informed that on the date of incident i.e. 08.04.2025, the victim was minor by marginal age of 17 years 11 months and 24 days and merely she is going to become major just after 06 days of the incident, therefore the action under the POCSO Act cannot be taken against the accused / respondent No.5. He also submits that it is not for the Investigating Officer to relax or condone the relaxation of 06 days in determining the majority of the victim child. It is for the Court to decide not for the Investigating Officer, therefore, respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.3 has breached the very spirit of the POSCO Act, which violates of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is matter of judicial purview of this Court. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to register the case under the POSCO Act against respondent No.5. 5 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It transpires from the pleadings made in this petition that the petitioner made several requests to respondent No.4 to take appropriate action under the POCSO Act against respondent No.5 and further requested to recover the victim / daughter of the petitioner, but the police has registered the case under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 for committing kidnapping only and no action has been taken against respondent No.5. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the pleadings made in writ petition and the relief as sought by the petitioner, we do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to law. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu