ORDER :

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Court POCSO Act & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1, Srigangangar in Case No.45/2019 whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 16/17 of POCSO Act against the petitioners and has called them by way of bailable warrant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits a specific allegation has been made against Gurpreet Singh for committing rape with the victim and no specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners and both the petitioners are women. Counsel further submits that after thorough investigation, Police submitted Final Report in this case, that no case is made out against the petitioners but later on after recording the statement of victim (PW-1), complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial Court and took cognizance against the petitioners. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. [AIR (2021) SC 5107]. The order of the trial Court is per-se illegal and without assigning any reason and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, so the order may be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the specific averment has been made by the victim in the FIR as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. so also in the Court statement as PW-1, against the present petitioners, therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for from this Court.

4. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record.

5. According to the FIR, the victim specifically made allegation against the present petitioners with regard to their complicity in the crime. Likewise, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, the victim has specifically stated that petitioner Jasanpreet administered her sedative tea and petitioner Kuldeep Kaur supported the accused Gurpreet. At the relevant time of incident, the age of victim was merely 17 years. Therefore, on finding prima facie evidence against the petitioners, the learned court below added the present petitioners as accused in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which cannot be said to be erroneous.

6. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power of the trial court, therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is shown that the order refusing to implead the persons as accused has been made mechanically or it is arbitrary or perverse. The trial court, while taking into consideration the entire material placed before it has taken cognizance against the petitioners.

7. The constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 1 Crl.L.R (SC) 310 while discussing the powers of the Court concurred with the view taken in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 concluded as under:

“110. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:

Question Nos. 1 & III

Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?

AND

Q. III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after comm