The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the victim's age in determining the alleged offences under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, and the reliance on the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for the determination of the victim's age.

JUDGMENT :

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Binod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the charge-sheet no.33 of 2022 dated 16.03.2022, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'the POCSO Act') Police Station Dholna, District Kasganj.

3. The facts in brief in the instant case are that the opposite party no.2, the father of the victim, had lodged an F.I.R. on 12.02.2022, alleging that on 26.12.2021 when his daughter went to the tubewell, in the evening at 5:00 P.M., from where the accused/applicant herein, namely Puspendra Singh, took away the daughter of the opposite party no.2, in which his brothers Prem Singh and Rajendra Singh have also assisted the applicant herein. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the investigation was started and the victim was recovered. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that her age is 17 years and she is educated upto Class VIII and she stated that she had gone alongwith the applicant out of her own free will and thereafter they went to Mathura and from there they went to Allahabad and she has solemnized the court marriage and both are living together as husband and wife. She further stated that she is pregnant for two months. This statement was recorded on 28.02.2022. In her statement she has further stated that she still want to live with the the applicant herein. In her medical examination, she was found pregnant and her age, as per the X-Ray Examination, was stated to be about 20 years. Such medical examination was conducted on 02.03.2022. During her medical examination, she has stated that her father used to shout at her, therefore, she ran away with the applicant. Subsequently, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she claimed that she is 19 years old and had gone with the applicant out of her own free will and she knew Puspendra Singh for about 45 months. Now, she is pregnant and she further stated that she don't want go with her father but she want to go with her husband, namely the applicant herein. After due investigation, having found the victim being minor on the date of incident, the charge-sheet was filed on 16.03.2022 against the applicant for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The instant application has been filed challenging the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 16.03.2022 as well as the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kashganj, whereby the cognizance has been taken by the learned Special Judge on the aforesaid charge-sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the Ossification Report, the age of the victim at the time of incident has been found to be about 20 years and in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has categorically stated that she has gone with the applicant out of her own free will and she has married with the applicant and she is pregnant. After her 164 Cr.P.C., statement, she was sent alongwith her father. However, she has again left the house of her father and came to the applicant and both are living as husband and wife. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the Ossification Report the victim was found to be a major, therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicant, as the victim has come alongwith the applicant out of her own free will and there was no force used by the applicant herein and both are adults and they are married and living together as husband and wife. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashing of the entire proceedings of the case. In support of his