IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that taking cognizance of an offence requires applying judicial mind to the complaint, and mere examination of the complainant does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. Pritam Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Mr. Ramjir Rakshap, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. By way of instituting the present proceeding, the petitioner has presented a challenge to an order, dated 17.01.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Kameng, Pakke Kesang, East Kameng & Tawang, at Bomdila, in Special Case POCSO Complaint Case No. 01/2024, directing the Officer in-charge, Women Police Station, Seppa, to register a case under appropriate sections of law and conduct investigation and submit a final report thereof under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , basing on a complaint so made before the learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Kameng, Pakke Kesang, East Kameng & Tawang, at Bomdila, by the respondent No. 2, herein, invoking the provisions of Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Harassment Act, 2012 .

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

As projected in the criminal petition, the petitioner and the respondent No.2, herein, were in a live-in-relationship. The petitioner, herein, was a married person. A misunderstanding having arisen between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, herein; the respondent No. 2 lodged an First Information Report(FIR) against the petitioner before the Officer in-charge, Seppa Police Station. It is contended in the criminal petition that the said First Information Report(FIR) after a preliminary inquiry, was not registered by the police on account of delay in lodging of the same. It is also contended in the petition that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 had started some time in the month of November, 2019, and that the respondent No. 2, herein, had projected herself, at the relevant point of time, to be a minor. It is also contended in the petition that the respondent No. 2 had lodged a divorce petition before the District Court, Bomdila, which was registered as Divorce Case No. 26/2023 and notices therein, have been issued and the petitioner had also filed his written statement in the matter.

After the said development, the respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint case before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 04/2023. However, the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 approached the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Kameng, Pakke Kesang, East Kameng & Tawang at Bomdila, on 10.01.2024, by way of filing a complaint case and the same was registered as Complaint Case No. 01/2024. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the Officer in-charge, Seppa Police Station, had not registered her First Information Report(FIR) inspite of the same disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. The learned Special Judge, POCSO, West Kameng, Pakke Kesang, East Kameng & Tawang, at Bomdila, recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2, herein, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , on 10.01.2024, itself.

After recording the statement of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , and on perusal of the copy of the said complaint along with its annexures appended thereto; it is alleged that the learned Special Judge, POCSO, had taken cognizance of the said complaint case and thereafter, had passed the impugned order, dated 17.01.2024, directing the Officer in-charge, Women Police Station, Seppa, to register a case basing on the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2, herein.

It is further contended in the criminal petition that in terms of the directions