The court upheld the framing of charges against the petitioner for disclosing the identity of a minor victim, establishing a prima facie case based on evidence of involvement in the dissemination of sensitive information.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III Dumka in Misc. Crl. Appeal No. 459 of 2022, Special POCSO Case No. 47 of 2021 arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 175 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and fixed the case for framing of the charge.

However, the learned trial court framed the charge vide its order dated 21.11.2022 against the petitioner, during the pendency of the instant criminal revision and accordingly the petitioner has filed interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2315 of 2023 for the amendment and addition in the existing prayer to the extent regarding the quashing of the order dated 21.11.2022, whereby charges were framed.

In pursuant to the order dated 17th May 2024 of this Court, the prayer for addition/amendment in view of I.A. No. 2315 of 2023 has been allowed. The additional prayer portion of the Cr. Revision No. 1254 of 2022 against which the petitioner is also seeking revision which reads as follows:

“1. (A) For quashing the order dated 21.11.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, Dumka, whereby the charges against the petitioner under Sections 228 (A), 120 B of the IPC, Section 74 (1) (3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2012 and Section 23 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 has been framed.”

2. The brief facts of the present case is that FIR got instituted on the written report of one ASI namely, Manjur Alam who allegedly stated therein that in the course of verification of Jamtara P.S. Sanha No. 24/18 dated 28.10.2018 when he made an enquiry from Manali Rai, Hospital Manager, then he came across the fact that one Karmatand P.S. Case No. 128 of 2018 dated 27.10.2018 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act has been lodged and victim of the said case brought to Sadar Hospital, Jamtara on 27.10.2018 at 9.30 P.M. in the night and victim got admitted by Dr. Subodh Kumar and she was being treated by Dr. Subodh Kumar and Dr. Manjula Murmu. It is further alleged that on 28.10.2018 at about 15.00 hrs. local M.L.A.- Dr. Irfan Ansari and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization from mobile No. 9771400857. Informant got copy of screen shot of above said message and photographs, as such, the above said act has been found violative of Section 74 (1) (3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 23 of POCSO Act and Section 228 A of IPC and therefore, present FIR being Jamtara P.S. Case No. 175 of 2018 came into existence and petitioner has been shown as an accused.

3. After lodging of aforesaid FIR, investigation was carried out during which statement of numbers of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and finally chargesheet has been submitted against Tarkeshwar Rai, Secretary of the petitioner herein and on account of lack of evidence, petitioner was not sent up for trial.

Case diary reveals that I.O has collected material during course of investigation that mobile no. 9771400857 from which allegedly name, address and photograph of the victim got circulated/viralled was being used by Tarkeshwar Rai, Secretary of petitioner and on this score, investigating officer did not sent petitioner for trial.

4. After filing of chargesheet against Tarkeshwar Rai, Secretary of petitioner, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 74 (1) (3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Section 23 of POCSO Act and Section 228- A of IPC and proceeded against above named Tarkeshwar Rai as well as present petitioner vide order dated 12.03.2020.

5. Perusal of record further transpires that petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 22