JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Ibohal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in ST (POCSO) Case No. 2 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court (POCSO), Imphal East.

3. The petitioner, who is the accused facing trial in ST (POCSO) Case No. 2 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Court (POCSO), Imphal East, has come forward with the present petition alleging that respondent No. 10 lodged a complaint against the petitioner before respondent No. 4 stating that the petitioner sexually assaulted his daughter, the minor girl. After registering the case and after conducting investigation, respondent No. 5 laid charge sheet before the learned Special Court (POCSO), Imphal East against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance under Section 6, of POCSO Act, 2012 against the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the learned Special Judge took cognizance without any valid medical report and that the order dated 22.05.2018 taking cognizance on the basis of the incomplete medical report would amount to a total contradiction and violation of the final medical report. Further case of the petitioner is that the statement of the alleged child victim, charge sheet, order dated 22.5.2018 taking cognizance and the final medical report have flagrantly violated the petitioner's right to fair investigation, inquiry and trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceedings in ST (POCSO) Case No. 2 of 2018.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR registered against the petitioner in the present case is not supported by the final medical report and that the final medical report flagrantly violates Section 27 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 164A(3) and Section 53A(3) of Cr.P.C. He would submit that the final medical report is not supported by a valid reason inasmuch as it based on the expert report dated 12.4.2018, which still requires and demands DNA profiling.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East is not in the statement as spoken by the victim child though it is so mandated by Section 25 read with Section 26 of the POCSO Act that the statement should be recorded in the statement as spoken by the child. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the charges levelled against him. He would submit that the case arose out of the personal vendetta of respondent No. 10 towards the petitioner as in the last Manipur Legislative Election, 2017, the petitioner supported Congress (I) candidate and respondent No. 10 supported BJP candidate and, therefore, respondent No. 10 had enmity towards the petitioner though they were close relatives.

7. Per contra, reiterating the contents in the FIR, statement of the child victim and the charge sheet, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and the same require a detailed trial. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record.

9. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the charge sheet, is that on 08.10.2017 at 9.00 P.M., the victim girl was crying because of pain on her private parts and on questioning about her pain, she disclosed that she was forcibly taken by her uncle, the petitioner Thounajam Tejkumar Singh, at his residential gate on that da