The court emphasized that at discharge stage, it must assume prosecution's claims are true and evaluate if there are sufficient grounds for trial, regardless of inconsistencies in statements.

ORDER :

RAVI V.HOSMANI, J.

Challenging order dated 01.09.2024 rejecting application for discharge filed by Petitioner/ sole accused in Spl.C.No.497/2025, passed by Addl. District And Sessions Judge FTSC-1, Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru, in Cr.no.252/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 78 , 115 (2), 351 (2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 (' BNS for short) and Sections 11 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ('POCSO', for short), this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Abhishek A, learned counsel for appearing for Sri Praveen Kumar HK, advocate for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution in brief was that, on 28.04.2023, a complaint was filed by respondent no.2, stating that she was residing with her parents and while studying II Year PUC, she was acquainted with accused. And since one year accused was following and approaching her near college and insisting on reciprocating his love for her by sending messages through her classmates, over phone etc. and subjecting her to mental harassment. He used to follow her everyday and sexually harass her. He also used to visit her home in absence of her parents insisting her to love him. On 28.04.2025 at about 3:00 p.m. accused came along with his mother and began abusing her in filthy words. They threw stones on door of her house and also attempted to assault her. Everyday while she was going and coming back from college, he used to force her to love him by touching her. Therefore, she sought for taking appropriate action against accused and facilitate to complete her studies. She also alleged that accused had assaulted her brother near Mayur Bakery, Whitefield.

3. It was submitted, same was registered as Cr.no.252/2025 by Whitefield P.S. and accused was arrested on same day at 11.50 pm. After investigation, charge-sheet dated 15.06.2025 was filed against accused for offences punishable under Sections 78 , 115 (2), 351 (2) and 352 of ' BNS ' and Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO in Spl.C.no.497/2025.

4. It was submitted, entire contents of complaint and facts and circumstances of case were false and vindictive. Accused had not committed offences as alleged. Despite same, only at instance of complainant and her family members, accused was being subjected to prosecution. Therefore, accused had filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.PC. But, Special Court rejected application without proper consideration leading to this petition.

5. It was firstly submitted, bare perusal of complaint would reveal that it was written by three different persons without any explanation. It was submitted, there were grave inconsistencies and improvements between contents of complaint and statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC., thereby indicating falsity of allegations. In complaint, complainant had stated that incident occurred around 7:30 p.m. near Mayur Bakery, whereas, in her statement recorded by Investigating Officer, she stated assault was at 8:10 p.m., near her father's Watch Repair Shop on Whitefield Main road, Loyal City Hyper Market.

6. It was submitted, there was no explanation for Investigating Officer ('IO' for short) recording further statement of complainant on same day on which her statement was recorded. It was submitted, employment of provisions of POCSO was to implicate accused of serious charges. It was submitted, overall view of above would indicate falsity of allegations and abuse of process of law, entitling accused for discharge.

7. It was submitted though charge sheet was filed citing 20 witnesses, sa