The duty of the Investigating Agency to collect material documents, the prerogative power of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused with worthy evidence, and the Trial Court's duty to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a right conclusion.

JUDGMENT

K.Somashekar, J. - This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Special Case No.187 of 2016, pending on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The charge-sheet has been laid against the accused relating to Cr.No.73 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. Accused No.1 Dr.Manjunath and Accused No.2 Ramachandra Rao being his father, arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.73 of 2013 and the crime came to be registered by the Mandya West Police Station, based upon the complaint given by the petitioner/informant herein namely, Mrs. Mary Paul who has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the aforesaid crime.

2. Heard Shri J.Hudson Samuel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Shri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who is physically present before the Court.

3. It is transpired from the case on hand that based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the first respondent had registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2013 against one Manjunath and his father Ramachandra Rao for the aforesaid offences. The charge-sheet has been laid against the accused persons. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner being an Executive Director of a reputed institution has neglected and failed to report the aforesaid offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 either to the police or to the Children Welfare Committee. Further, the Respondent-Police have shown the petitioner as absconding accused in the chargesheet. But by virtue of the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner that cognizance has been taken by the Special Judge in Special Case No.187 of 2016 for the offences which lugged against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid case.

4. It is relevant to state that accused No.1 Dr.Manjunath and his wife Kalavathi who did not have any issues, approached Vatsalya Charitable Trust and evinced interest to adopt a girl child by name Renuka, and by virtue of the permission given under Order dated 16.01.2007 HAMA No.25091/2007 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, the said child Renuka was given in adoption to accused No.1 Manjunath and his wife Kalavathi, by the said Trust of which the petitioner herein is the Executive Director. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the year 2011, the said adopted parents brought back the child Renuka to the said Trust, Bengaluru and informed them that the said child was not able to adjust with them, which was fortified by the statement of the child and letters written by the adopted parents to the Trust. It is the further case of the prosecution that the Trust along with the adopted parents brought the child and produced her before the Children Welfare Committee on 17.10.2012 and on that day, the girl gave a statement that she does not want to live with accused No.1 and his wife. It is the case of the complainant that as the Trust informed the complainant through phone that as the child does not want to go with the adopted parents and desires to be in the Trust, the Trust after obtaining an opinion, requested the complainant to permit them to retain the child with them. It is the case of the complainant that based on the statement given by the child, when the accused Nos.1 and 2 were called upon to appear before the Committee, they have admitted about the commission of offence. Hence, the complainant had filed the aforesaid complaint before the Respondent Police for the aforesaid offences. Based on the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.73/2013 and the same was forwarded to the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Mandya. However, in the charge-sh