Jaishree Thakur, J.

This is a revision petition that has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 14.9.2017 passed by the learned trial court, Gurugram, framing of charges against the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case need to be noted to appreciate the controversy arising herein.

3. The petitioner's son, namely, Abhishek Anand, got married to the complainant/respondent No.2 on 16.4.2006 and out of this wedlock three children were born, the eldest being born 22.8.2010 and twins were born on 1.11.2012. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 28.6.2017 alleging that the petitioner's husband, namely, Shailzanand Thakur had sexually assaulted her minor daughter during the children's stay in Jamshedpur, when the three children had gone there for winter vacations from 28.12.2016 to 5.1.2017. In the complaint dated 28.6.2017, it was alleged that the petitioner herein (paternal grandmother of the minor victim) abetted in the commission of crime. Immediately thereafter, an FIR No. 204 of 2017 under Sections 6 and 10 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') came to be registered against the petitioner and her husband. Statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') was recorded on 28.6.2017 by the Magistrate. On the same date, statement of the victim was also recorded by the Child Welfare Committee as well as statement of the victim's father. The Investigating Agency recorded the statements of the victim, as well as of her mother the complainant, under Section 161 of the Code on 6.7.2017 and on conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and her husband-Shailzanand Thakur. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges by the impugned order dated 14.9.2017, which is under challenge in this revision by Punam Thakur the grandmother of the minor victim.

4. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner impugns the said charge sheet, by arguing that the trial court has failed to consider material contradictions and the improvements made. It is argued that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Child Welfare Committee on 28.6.2017, does not reflect any allegations directly or indirectly against the petitioner and any allegations made in the statement so recorded is entirely against her grandfather-Shailzanand Thakur. It is only on 6.7.2017, the young prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 of the Code made a reference of the petitioner herein, in which statement she stated "...I had told my dadi about these actions and my dadi ma did not scold my dadu and she did not tell it to my mother father. When my dadi ma did not tell dadu about the actions that were done with me then I told my mother father about what was done with me by dadu..." Learned Senior Advocate also argues that the impugned order framing charges would not be sustainable as the trial Court has proceeded on the premise that the petitioner Punam Thakur was present in the room or in the house where the grandfather repeatedly committed acts of sexual assault upon the victim. It is also contended that in view of the allegations in the charge-sheet, no ingredient of abetment is made out qua the petitioner, as the petitioner neither instigated nor intentionally aided the accused-Shailzanand Thakur to commit the alleged offence. It is also argued that a reading of the statement of the prosecutrix would reflect that the offence, if any, has taken place in Jamshedpur when the three children had visited their grandparents during winter break and, therefore, territorial jurisdiction, if any, to try the offence was with the Courts at Jamshedpur and the Gurugram courts would not have such territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, it is argued that t