JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of petitioner, namely, Amitabh Dutta @ Amitav Dutta against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Dhanbad in Spl. POCSO Case No.62 of 2022 arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.311 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the discharge application moved on behalf of the petitioner had been rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety while rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner. The court below has failed to appreciate the allegations made in the FIR vis-a-vis the investigation done by the investigating officer. There is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had sexually assaulted or abused the informant. The pattern of implication in this case itself shows that the prosecution story was concocted. No offence under the POCSO Act is made out. The victim was not minor on the date of occurrence. The most impeachable evidence produced by the petitioner in regard to the date of birth was the Pan Card number as well as the running bank account of the informant, these two document showed the date of birth mentioned by the informant was false and accordingly, contended to allow this criminal revision and to set aside the impugned order passed by the court below.

3. The learned APP on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the impugned order passed by the court below is based on the allegations made in the FIR and also evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. Consequently, same bears no illegality and needs no interference.

4. It is the settled law that while framing charge or disposing the application for discharge moved on behalf of accused the trial court has to go through the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the investigating officer oral or documentary during investigation and if on the basis of the allegations and evidence collected by the investigating officer there are sufficient ground to proceed with the trial only then the charge could have been framed.

5. The prosecution case as per FIR version is that the informant given the written information with the police station concerned on 30.11.2021 with these allegations that about six years ago Amitabh Dutta bearing mobile nos. 9535349059, 8873166484 and 7225954455 who is resident of Siddi Apartment Devipara, Hirapur, PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad had taken her from her mother on the pretext to provide job to the informant in his house. He also assured the mother of informant that taking into consideration the economic condition he would also arrange her marriage at his own expenses. The wife of Amitabh Dutta had gone alongwith her daughter to Ranchi for education. In the meantime, Amitabh Dutta began to establish physical relation forcibly after administering her with some intoxicant. Having come to know the same she wept and this Amitabh Dutta criminally intimidated her and also allured the informant that he would get her marry with some an officer. He would give her the name of him as a father. On this allurement, he continued to rape her. The informant also became pregnant many times, however the fetus was aborted. On 04.11.2021 abortion was also done by administering the medicine to the informant. On 23.11.2021 the son of Amitabh Dutta came and he began to knock the door of the room as she opened the door he dropped her on the ground and in order to outrage the modesty of the informant also pulled her cloths and ultimately raped her. Amitabh Dutta and his son both had criminally intimidated her. On 29.11.2021 Amitabh Dutta, his wife, son and daughter made attempt to abduct her. Amitabh Dutta asked her not to file the case and in lieu of the same, he would give her a huge amount. He also stated that in failure he wou