The court held that failure to give the accused an opportunity to file for discharge before framing charges violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. By filing the present CRLMC application under section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-Spl.Judge (POCSO), Jagatsinghpur in Spl. G.R.Case No.14 of 2025 which corresponds to Nuagaon P.S.Case No.39 of 2025 thereby framing charge against the Petitioner under section 65(2) of B.N.S., 2023 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. Being aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the learned Special Court under the POCSO Act in supplying police papers and framing charge on the very same day without providing an opportunity to the accused-Petitioner to file a discharge application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this application. Since the issue involved in this application is a pure question of applicability of the procedural law to the facts of the case, the present is being taken up for hearing and adjudication of such issue in presence of learned State Counsel.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 14.02.2025 Nuagaon P.S. case was registered for commission of offence punishable under section 65(2) of B.N.S, 2023 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The Petitioner has been shown as the sole accused in the said F.I.R. He further contended that in connection with the aforesaid case, the Petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody and faced trial in the aforesaid case. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-Spl Judge (POCSO), Jagatsinghpur is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the Police papers were supplied to the Petitioner on 21.04.2025 while accepting the vakalatnama of the learned conducting counsel for the Accused- Petitioner. Although the first part of the order dated 21.04.2025 reveals that the vakalatnama of the conducting counsel was accepted, the accused was provided with Police Papers and remanded to custody till 12.05.2025, however, later on the very same day another order has been passed. On perusal of the order passed later in 21.04.2025, it appears that hearing of charge took place on the very same day. Accordingly, charge has been framed against the Accused-Petitioner under section 65(2) of B.N.S., 2023 read with of POCSO Act, and the contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that on 21.04.2025 on production of Accused-Petitioner, he was served with Police Papers and he was remanded to jail custody. However, later on the very same day another order was passed indicating that hearing of charge took place and charge has been framed, read over and explained to the accused. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the procedure prescribed in the B.N.S.S. has been violated and the Petitioner has not been granted any opportunity to file a discharge Petition as provided under Section 250 of BNSS . In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 2