The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned order disclosing the judicial mind of the court while exercising its power to take cognizance and issue process to accused persons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

3. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2020, passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr in Special Session Trial No.1493 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.236 of 2020, under Section 316, 120-B IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

4. As both the criminal revisions have arising out of same impugned order passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr, hence, both the revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The factual matrix relevant for the present criminal revisions, in brief, are that first information report in present case was lodged at the instance of prosecutrix at police station concerned at 15:26 hours, stating that her date of birth is 14.5.2002. She visited the place of her phupi (bua) situated at Village Bhatwara, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahr in year 2019 where accused Aakil, the nephew of her phuphi, committed rape on her finding her alone in her house. He used to commit rape on her frequently by keeping her in fear, due to which she got pregnant in the January, 2020 and when she told this fact to Aakil, he continued to commit rape on her on pretext of solemnizing marriage with her. She told this fact to family members when she got pregnant for six months and thereafter family members including her uncle Sageer, Zaheer, Doctor Nazeer, maternal uncle Salim Master came at her place on 29.6.2020 in Bulandshahar and took her to Khurja on same day on pretext of solemnizing her marriage with Aakil where they took her to the clinic of Dr. Geeta and got her fetus aborted. Accused persons also threatened her with life. In FIR, these accused persons are named alongwith accused Aakil. The police investigated the case and got the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. She was brought before medical witness for medico legal examination but she refused to get her internal examination done by the Doctor, but the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made specific allegations against Aakil, his elder brother Khursheed, his father and uncle. In statement under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix referred these persons as relatives of Aakil.

6. Police submitted the chargesheet against accused Aakil for charge under Section 452, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act but concluded that charge under Section 316, 120-B IPC, which was attributed to other named accused persons namely, Sageer, Zaheer, Dr. Nazeer, Salim Master and Dr. Geeta was not substantiated and their naming was found false. Therefore, the charge under Section 316 and 120-B IPC is dropped after investigation. Learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order on 16.6.2020. Feeling aggrieved by said order, the revisionist has preferred present criminal revision before this court.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is not speaking order. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of investigation has given finding that no offence under Section 316, 120-B IPC has been made out and he filed chargesheet only against accused Aakil for other charges. The Magistrate or criminal court has jurisdiction to issue process against the proposed accused only if there is sufficient material available to issue process against them and they are sent up for trial by the Investigating Officer on conclusion of investigation. The course left to the Magistrate after submission of final report by the police, further investigation in the matter without taking cognizance or deal with the protest petition, if any, filed by the complainant but in the instant case, neither any further investigation was ordered or any protest petition