$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366372026 + CRL.REV.P. 468/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24258/2026 SURAJ & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Appearance not given. Versus STATE GNCTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the order dated 06.06.2025 passed in SC Case No. 6924/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the Applicant’s application for discharge and proceeded to frame charges against the Applicant. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prosecutrix was not a minor at the time of the alleged offence and, relying upon the document filed by the prosecution along with the chargesheet, casts doubt upon her age. 3. This Court, by order dated 12.08.2026, directs the State to clarify the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:17:18 aspect relating to the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident. 4. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP for the State, in compliance with the directions of this Court, has verified the factum regarding the age of the prosecutrix and has also filed a status report reaffirming that, as reflected in the chargesheet, prosecutrix was aged 16 years and 7 months at the time of the alleged offence, which is further corroborated by her school records. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, places reliance on a notification issued by the Government of India and contends that the school record is essentially based on the Aadhaar Card, which is not a document for the purpose of age verification. 6. It is trite law that the age of a prosecutrix is to be determined in accordance with the procedure and hierarchy prescribed under the Juvenile Justice framework. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana,1 the Supreme Court held that the said procedure is equally applicable for determining the age of a child who is a victim of crime. The Court is required to ascertain the age by adopting the first available document in the prescribed hierarchy, namely, the matriculation or equivalent certificate; in its absence, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended; thereafter, the birth certificate issued by a Corporation, Municipal Authority or Panchayat; and only in the absence of all such documents can medical opinion be sought. The availability of a higher ranked document thus conclusively determines the age, leaving no occasion to resort to any subsequent or lower ranked material. 7. It is equally well settled that, at the stage of considering an application This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:17:18 for discharge or framing of charge, the scope of scrutiny is limited to determining whether the material placed by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case or raises a grave suspicion against the accused warranting a trial. The Court may sift and weigh the material and apply its judicial mind for this limited purpose, but cannot undertake a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case, assess the reliability, acceptability or evidentiary value of the material, or examine whether the evidence would ultimately result in conviction or acquittal. In State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap,2 and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI,3 the Supreme Court has reiterated that a mini- trial is impermissible at this stage and that the defence on merits cannot be considered. The scope of interference by the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction against an order framing charge, is equally circumscribed, and it cannot undertake a detailed examination of the merits or virtually conduct a mini-trial while considering the legality of such an order. 8. The determination of the age of the victim, including the rebuttal of the presumption attached to the documents relied upon for such determination, is a matter to be considered during the course of trial, which is the appropriate stage for examining such issues. 9. At this stage, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 10. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. All rights 1 (2013) 7 SCC 263 2 (2021) 11 SCC 191 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:17:18 and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged during the course of trial. 11. The pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 17, 2026/p 3 (2010) 9 SCC 368 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:17:18