Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special Judge, Protection of Children for Sexual Offences (POCSO) in G.R. No. 21 of 2021 in connection with Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 39 of 2021 registered on 01.03.2021 under Sections 341, 342, 376, 504, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act whereby and whereunder the learned Court below took cognizance against the petitioners.

3. The prosecution story read as follows: –

(i) vide written report, the informant alleged that she is permanent resident of Village- Sonpatahi, P.S.-Babubarhi, District- Madhubani and on 25.02.2021, at about 2.15 O’ Clock of the day, while she was going from her house for collecting vegetable from her field and as she reached near the residence of Deepak Kumar, he called her;

(ii) further allegation in the F.I.R. is that, when she reached in his courtyard, he forcibly locked her in the room and committed rape. It has further been alleged that as she was crying and in the meantime the aunt of Deepak Kumar, namely Kiran Devi and other accuseds came there and having seen the occurrence they screamed ‘Julum Ho Gaya’, followed by exhortion to kill her. So that no one could know about the occurrence. Thereafter allegation is that Kiran Devi put cloth in her mouth, so that she could not speak and all of them threatened her for dire consequences;

(iii) However, as her cousin brother Sudhir Kumar had seen her while Deepak Kumar was calling her and as she failed to return home, he told her aunt and other villagers whereafter they came at the residence of Deepak Kumar, saw the room locked, it was opened, saw her in bad condition removed the cloth from her mouth, whereafter she narrated her ordeal. She was rescued from Deepak’s house after three hours by her aunt and other villagers.

4. Accordingly, the FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this was a story created to put pressure to get herself married to Deepak Kumar. The further submission is that the occurrence is of 25.02.2021, whereas the FIR was lodged on 01.03.2021 and thus, there was delay of four days in lodging of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there was also land dispute going on between the parties, further, as they were agnates, the marriage was being opposed by the family which resulted into this false implication.

7. The further submission is that some differences between the parties have been given criminal color and in any case, the allegation of rape has been made on Deepak Kumar under Section 376 of the IPC has been extended upon all the accused persons including the lady.

8. The learned counsel submits that the charge sheet was submitted against Deepak Kumar under Sections 341, 342, 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act and so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, supplementary final form bearing 385 of 2021 dated 21.12.2021 was submitted, which however, was not accepted by the learned Court and on the basis of materials on record, cognizance was taken under Sections as stated above.

9. In support of the case, learned counsel has cited a case related to All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anr. Reported in 2008(1) PLJR 51 (SC) with specific reference to paragraph-17: –

We are of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence. For the said purpose, this Court may not only take into consideration the admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into the pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in the suit. No allegation whatsoever was made against the appellants herein in the notice. What was contended was negligence and/or breach of contract on the part of the carriers and their agent. Breach of contract simplicit