HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8470/2024 Navtab @ Pintu Son Of Suresh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Kolsiya, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu . ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Mahla For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO ACT), Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 26/2024 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 427, 336, 323, 342 and 376-D of IPC and Sections 3,4, 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act. Counsel submits that the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix is disputed by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the application submitted for summoning of the Medical Officer of Govt. Community Health Centre Kolsiya, the Village Development Officer, Kolsiya as well as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kolsiya and the Executive Officer of the Municipal (2 of 2) [CRLMP-8470/2024] Board, Nawalgarh for apprising the Court below with regard to correct date of birth of the prosecutrix but the said application was rejected. Counsel submits that in absence of the evidence of the above persons, the matter cannot be adjudicated properly. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner is facing trial for the above offence and on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Police wherein documents with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix have been enclosed. In case, the petitioner disputes the correctness of the date of birth of the prosecutrix, he would be at liberty to produce the appropriate defence along with appropriate documents at appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of 315 Cr.P.C. but in any case, the above mentioned persons cannot be summoned for proving the date of birth of the prosecutrix. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, which requires any interference of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/141