JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner -Shri Tania Lida, has challenged the Supplementary Charge-Sheet No.65 (b)/20, dated 25.08.2021, filed in Daprijo P.S. Case No. 31/17, under Section 4 (1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and also the entire case proceeding of BSR/POCSO-09/2021, under Section 4 (1) of POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Basar.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“The petitioner, namely Shri Tania Lida was charge-sheeted in Daporijo P.S. Case No. 31/17 under Section 306/34 IPC. Thereafter, BSR/SESS-05/2021 has been registered and the learned court below at the time of consideration of charge on 01.07.2021 has discharged the petitioner and another co-accused from the offences under Section 306/34 IPC. While passing the discharge order, dated 01.07.2021, the learned Court below has directed the I.O. to conduct further investigation to ascertain the age of the deceased. The said order has also been impugned in Criminal Petition No. 32/2021 pending before this Court by the petitioner. While the said petition was pending for disposal, the I.O. has completed the investigation and submitted Supplementary Charge-Sheet under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and upon the said supplementary Charge-Sheet, the learned Court below has taken cognizance and initiated the proceeding against the petitioner, despite, there being no materials/evidence, whatsoever. Therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition to quash the supplementary Charge-Sheet and subsequent proceeding pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, on the following grounds:-

(i) that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact that even assuming the age of the deceased to be of 16 years (as recorded in the Post Mortem Report) in the absence of any materials of sexual assault in any form as defined under POCSO Act, 2012, the order for further investigation with respect to the age of deceased would be futile and abuse of process of the law;

(ii) the learned court below has failed to appreciate the law that after discharging the accused for the charges laid in the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no direction or order for further investigation can be passed in view of the judgment as held in the case of Bikash Ranjan Rout-vs-NCT of Delhi, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 542 that the impugned order, dated 01.07.2021 is an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, it is contended to set it aside.”

4. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the co-accused has been discharged by the learned Court below from the charges under Section 306/34 IPC vide order, dated 01.07.2021 and vide the said order, the learned Court below has also directed the I.O. to conduct further investigation and to ascertain the age of the deceased and thereafter, the I.O. has ascertain her age and found her age below the age of 18 years and thereafter, submitted the Charge-Sheet under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Taking this Court through the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the statement of the witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted as gospel truth, yet, the same fails to reveal any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act and as such, submission of supplementary Charge-Sheet is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in 1992 AIR 604. And therefore, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended to allow the petition. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for th