ORDER :

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 616/2017 registered at Police Station, Bemetara, District Bemetara, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. As per the prosecution the case, on 16.10.2017, the complainant-respondent No. 2 has lodged report before the Police Station, Bemetara, alleging that for the last one year, the petitioner has been teasing her daughter who was studying in Class IX. The further case of the complainant is that her daughter always complained about the petitioner’s behavior and also his action to towards her. It is further alleged in the report, that the petitioner abused her daughter with filthy language and also committed sexual assault on her.

3. After having come to know about the aforesaid FIR, the mother of the petitioner/accused has given the representation before the Collector as well different authorities for fair investigations. In the representations, the mother of the petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner is studying at Bilaspur in I.T.I course and he was not residing at Bemetara for last one year, therefore there is no question to tease the respondent No. 2’s daughter at that point of time. As a matter of fact, due to plucking of flowers there was some dispute between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. and in order to take revenge, the respondent No. 2 has lodged a false complaint. In the representations, it was specifically contended that before registering the offence, the police authority has not sent the matter before Child Welfare Committee for proper enquiry as the petitioner is also a juvenile and in such circumstances the enquiry by the said committee is required as per law.

4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 is habitual of lodging report of sexual harassment against the different persons. Earlier also, she has lodged report against one Neelkanth Chandrakar and Ayodhya Chandrakar under section 376 of IP.C and as such, a report was made by the senior citizens of that locality for fair enquiry before the Superintend of Police. Similarly several citizens of that locality have also given an application before the Superintendent of Police for fair investigation regarding false implication of the petitioner and sworn the affidavits in support of the same.

5. Ms. Singhai further submits that the prosecution, while registering the case, has completely overlooked the fact that the petitioner is residing at Bilaspur for last one year, therefore, it is completely false allegation that for the last one hear, he has been harassing the victim. According to the complainant herself no specific allegation is made in the FIR against the petitioner nor there is mention of any one single instance mentioning the date place and time with regard to the sexual assault or use of abusive language. Only a general allegation is made that the petitioner has been harassing the daughter of respondent No. 2 for the last one year. The petitioner is also a minor boy and his entire career would be jeopardized if the false FIR registered against him, is not quashed. The present case is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

6. Mr. Gurudev I Sharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that today, he is not having the file and as such, is not in a position to assist the Court. However, he expresses his sincere regrets for the same.

7. Mr. R.K.Pali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 pleads no instructions.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

9. This case was listed for the first time on 10.11.2017, and this Court, while issuing notices to the respondents, observed as under:

“Learned counsel for the applicant submits tha