Acceptance of apology and refraining from passing strict orders in light of misrepresentation in the application and the petitioners' apprehension of arrest in connection with a case under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The matter was heard at length on 1st September, 2020, when the Court noticed grave discrepancies in the pleadings/application, inasmuch as, the deponent of the main application, Chhote Lal Kumar, has stated that he was aged about 18 years and had described himself as father-in-law of petitioner no. 2.

4. Perusal of the main application discloses that the deponent is aged about 18 years and has described himself as the father-in-law of petitioner no. 2, who is said to be aged about 45 years. Thus, an 18 years old person being the father-inlaw of a 45 years old person is absurd and patently false. Further, in support of his identity, Chhote Lal Kumar has annexed copy of his Aadhar Card bearing No. 493042524029 in which his date of birth has been shown as 01.01.2003. Thus, on the date of affirming the affidavit i.e., 24.09.2019, Chhote Lal Kumar was a minor, aged only 16 years 9 months. Moreover, the Court noticed that in the main application, full younger brother of petitioner no. 1 has been referred to as 'one Hiral Goswami' at paragraphs no. 7 and 8, which, in so many words creates a misleading impression that the petitioners have absolutely no connection with Hira Goswami. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to disclose their relationship with Hira Goswami. Further, in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, which has been affirmed by the father of petitioner no. 1, for the first time, it was disclosed that Hira Goswami was his younger son and brother of petitioner no. 1. However, the relationship of petitioner no. 2 has not been disclosed, either in the main application or supplementary affidavit. Pursuant to the observations of the Court, second supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, on 2 nd September, 2020.

5. In the aforesaid background, the Court deemed it appropriate to take strict judicial note of the same and pass appropriate orders.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners tendered unqualified apology and drew the attention of the Court to paragraphs no. 3 to 10 of the second supplementary affidavit. The same read as under:

"3. That before going into the facts of this case this deponent as well as counsel for petitioners tender their unqualified apology before this Hon'ble court for inconvenience to this Hon'ble court

4. That it is most humbly submitted on behalf of counsel for petitioners that in future he will not repeat such type of mistake.

5. That it is further most humbly submitted that the relation of the deponent in para-1 of affidavit in main petition, by mistake has been left the word "cousin" prior to word father-in-law which is typographic mistake.

6. That it is further most humbly submitted that the deponent of main petition is the younger brother of father-in-law of petitioner no. 1, so he is cousin father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 but the word cousin has been left due to typographic mistake which is not deliberate.

7. That it is further most humbly submitted that age of deponent was more than 18 years at the time of affidavit which would be evident from his CERTIFICATE of matric.

8. That it is further most humbly submitted that the date of birth of deponent of main petition has been wrongly mentioned as 1.01.2003 in the ADHAR CARD but the real date of birth of deponent namely Chhotelal Kumar is 14.02.2001 which would be evident from his certificate of Matric.

9. That it is further most humbly submitted that this fact could not be disclosed in main petition due to mistake which is not deliberate.

10. That once again this deponent as well as counsel for the petitioner tender th