2025:JHHC:11041 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.24 of 2025 …. Pankaj Singh, Aged about 27 years, son of Vijay Singh, Resident of Village-Adarsh Nagar, Avdih More Anpara, P.O. & P.S.- Sonbhadra, District- Sonbhadra, (U.P.) At present resident of Vilalge-Semri, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. XYZ ……Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate …… Order No.05/08.04.2025 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1121 of 2024 by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Special Judge POCSO Act-cum-ASJ-I- Cum-FTC-(CAW), Garhwa, by which the prayer for discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.350 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act 2012. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that victim lady voluntarily moved with the petitioner by her own. There is no deception and inducement on his part. It is submitted that the physical relationship, established between them, was consensual in nature and no force was utilized and as such this is not a case under Section 32 of IPC and this is case a maximum 2025:JHHC:11041 2 deception and cheating and no case under the provision of POCSO is made out as the victim girl is aged is 17 years and 5 months and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has also opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim was a minor and aged about 17 years and 5 months at the time of occurrence and the provision of POCSO will apply. It is submitted that although the petitioner has established physical relationship, but she is a minor girl and hence the prayer for discharge may be rejected and the Criminal Revision may be dismissed. 6. From perusal of records and submissions by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner is named in the FIR for establishing physical relationship with the victim girl and the victim girl was aged about 17 years and 5 months at the time of occurrence as it appears from the School Leaving Certificate. The victim girl has supported the occurrence. 7. As the victim girl is minor girl, this Court is of the view that ingredients of Section 4 of POCSO Act, is available and as such the prayer of discharge petition has highly been rejected. 8. According, This Criminal Revision Application No.24 of 2025 is dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Nishant/-