Charges must be framed with judicial discretion, based on corroborative evidence, to prevent miscarriage of justice; improper framing can render charges illegal.

ORDER :

Petitioner/Accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question orders dated 13-04-2023 (Crl.P.No.4511 of 2023) and 15-04-2023 (Crl.P.No.4513 of 2023) passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Special Case (POCSO) No.181 of 2022 and 182 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 7 6(2)(n), 376DA, 376(3), 201, 506 r/w 34 & 37 of the IPC, Section 5 (L) & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short), Section 3 (1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Atrocities Act’ for short), Section 3 (c), 3(f), 3(5) and 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’ for short) and Section 7 5 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’ for short).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner/Accused No.1 is the Pontiff of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhanmutt, Chitradurga (‘Mutt’ for short). A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.155 of 2022 based upon a complaint lodged by one Sri Chandrakumar before the Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore. The allegation in the complaint was that two victims, girls aged about 15 and 16 years were inmates in a hostel run by the Mutt. It was alleged that the Pontiff had sexually abused the two victims for the last 3½ years insofar as it concerned a 16 years old girl and 1½ years insofar as 15 years old girl is concerned. The further allegation is that one Paramashivaiah, Rashmi, Junior Pontiff Basavadithya and Advocate Gangadharaiah have all facilitated the commission of offence. Both the victims were produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Mysore by the office bearers of a non-governmental organization (‘NGO’ for short) called ‘Odanadi’. The complaint further narrates that counseling of both the victims at Odanadi was undertaken, it is then the victims came forward to register the complaint. Since the alleged offence had taken place at Chitradurga, the case was transferred to the jurisdictional Police at Chitradurga and a fresh crime, in Crime No.387 of 2022 comes to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 5 (L), 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 3 76(2)(n), 376(3), 149 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation on the basis of the complaint and the allegations in the FIR and filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court. The moment the charge sheet is filed in Special Case (POCSO) Nos.181 of 2022 and 182 of 2022, the petitioner addressed his arguments under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court without considering the arguments of the petitioner, framed the charges against the petitioner in terms of the order dated 13-04-2023 in Spl.CC No.181 of 2022 and in Spl.CC No.182 of 2022 on 15-04-2023. The framing of charges is what has driven accused No.1 to this Court in the subject petition calling in question the framing of charges dated 13-04-2023 and 15-04-2023 by the Police in Special Case (Pocso) Nos.181 of 2022 and 182 of 2022.

3. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor and Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order of framing of charges suffers from blatant non-application of mind, as the allegations that can never be laid against the petitioner have all been framed. The learned senior counsel would submit that the moment the charge sheet was filed, the peti