ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.:–Heard Mr. P.N Shahi, learned senior counsel along with Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 03.04.2021 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 231 of 2019, arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 983 of 2019, registered under Sections 341, 342, 448, 354, 354 A, 354 B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act), whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum- Special Court POCSO, Patna has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 342, 354 A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the minor informant got registered the aforesaid FIR stating in her written report that she and her sister were alone in the house on 01.11.2019 as her parents went to Deo (Aurangabad) on the occasion of Chhath festival and the petitioner, her neighbour, entered into the house of the informant by pushing her. The petitioner tried to forcibly pull the informant inside the room and started touching her body parts inappropriately. She and her sister started shouting and when the persons nearby started coming to their house, then the petitioner fled away from the place and while leaving threatened them not to say anything to any person. After return of her parents on 06.11.2019, the informant told her mother about the occurrence in the night of 07.11.2019 and informed the police on 08.11.2019. She also stated that she was very fearful and for this reason she told about the occurrence quite late to her family members.

4. The matter was investigated and the statement of the victim girl/informant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that her parents had been gone to Aurangabad for performing Chhath. The petitioner who stays besides her quarter came to her house on 01.11.2019 and inquired about her from her sister and thereafter came to her room. He started touching her body parts. She became very fearful. Both of them started shouting. The neighbours came and then the petitioner fled away from there. He also threatened the informant that if she uttered a word to any one he would kill her.

5. During investigation, a protest petition was filed on behalf of the informant by her father submitting that the investigating officer has not been doing the investigation properly. Thereafter, the final form has been submitted along with the case diary with noting ‘lack of evidence’ and thus the petitioner was not sent up for facing trial.

6. Considering the material on record, the protest petition filed on behalf of the informant and also the rejoinder to it filed by the petitioner, learned Special Court took cognizance in the matter as already noted above. Aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 03.04.2021, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for quashing of the cognizance order.

7. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on two grounds - on the facts of the case and on legal point.

It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there are a number of discrepancies and absurdities in the case of the informant. For an occurrence dated 01.11.2019, the FIR has only been lodged on 08.11.2019. From the perusal of the FIR, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the case diary, it is apparent that none of the provisions of POCSO Act are applicable against the petitioner. The statement of the victim in her written report, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory to each other on certain points. The learned court failed to take into consideration the fact that none of the independent witnesses has supported the case of the informant and the Call Detail Report of the mobi