The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the POCSO Act, 2012, specifically Section 11 and Section 12, in cases involving sexual harassment of children.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. The instant criminal revision has been directed on behalf of petitioner Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav against the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1086 of 2021 under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with POCSO Case No. 30 of 2021 arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the learned court below had rejected the application for discharge of the petitioner accused.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that informant had given a written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that his 15 years old minor daughter was missing from 1 O’ clock of night of 13.01.2021 from his house. On 12.01.2021 at 10:30 all the family members had gone to sleep to their bed. All of sudden his daughter was not found on her bed. The search was also made of her. His minor daughter was studying in Class-Xth. One and half year ago a teacher of the school Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav who was having evil eye upon his daughter. Complaint of the same was made to the Manager of the school and the school management had removed him from the school even that, after he used to make effort to meet his daughter. With this utter belief that Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav alongwith his associates had kidnapped his daughter with intent to have illicit relation with her the report was lodged. On this written information case crime no. 1 of 2021 was registered under section 363, 366A of IPC against the accused Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav with the police station Gidhour District Chatra. During investigation the offence under section 302 r/w 201 was also made out from the evidence collected by the IO and accordingly both these sections were also added and the IO after having concluded the investigation filed F.R. against Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav for the offence under section 363, 366(A), 302, 201, 376D, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of POCSO Act. The final report Form No. 29 of 2021 on 20.04.2021 was filed against the petitioner Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav for lack of the evidence and the investigation against the rest of the accused Md. Sahjad, Md. Ajhar, Md. Sahabuddin was continued on other points in supplementary investigation.

3. Against the final report filed by the IO for lack of evidence against the petitioner Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav the learned trial court took cognizance vide order dated 23.04.2021 on the basis of the evidence collected by the IO for the offence under section 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. As such the trial against the present petitioner Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav commenced against him for the offence under section 12 of POCSO Act.

5. On behalf of petitioner Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav an application for discharge was filed before the trial court on the grounds that though the petitioner was named in the FIR which was lodged on the basis of mere suspicion. There is nothing on record on the evidence collected by the IO to make out the said offence under section 12 of POCSO Act against the petitioner accused. On these grounds prayed to discharge the petitioner.

6. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned public prosecutor for the State passed the impugned order on 04.05.2022 whereby the application for the discharge of the petitioner was rejected.

7. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Chatra the instant criminal revision has been directed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is bad in the eye of law. The learned court below has failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order which is based on erroneous finding recorded by the learned court below. Learned court below