Charges under POCSO can be framed without new allegations if based on existing evidence, emphasizing the seriousness of claims made against the accused.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Surender Kumar to challenge the Order dated 17.04.2018 of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, New Delhi in Case bearing N.SC/741/2017, FIR No.654/2017, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Delhi, holding that there was a prima facie case made out under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) and consequently formal charges were framed on and 21.04.2018; and further against the Order dated 20.07.2019 whereby the Charge was amended and Section under Section 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) read with Section 11 POCSO Act, was added against the Petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is the maternal grandfather (Nana) of the victim. He is the father of Smt. “P”, who got married to Rakesh Kumar according to Hindu rites and customs on 09.02.2007. From their wedlock, two children were born on 22.02.2008 and 25.09.2012 respectively.

3. The brief background leading to the present FIR No.654/2017 are that Smt. “P” filed a Complaint leading to registration of FIR No.22/2017 dated 02.02.2017 at Police Station Rohini, against her father-in-law, Shri Prayag Chand. It was alleged by Smt. “P” that after marriage, Shri Prayag Chander, her father-in-law, used to improperly look at her with sinister intentions. He used to spike the soft drinks and thereafter, outraged her modesty and committed rape on her. He also took naked photographs of her. He also threatened Smt. “P” and asked her not to disclose the acts of crime to anyone.

4. It is submitted by the Petitioner herein that as a counterblast to the FIR No.22/2017, Respondent No.2/Complainant, Smt. “S” (sister-in-law of Smt. “P”) decided to wreck vengeance on the maternal side of Smt. “P” by resolving to train and tutor the grandchildren (children of Smt. “P”, Child „A‟ and „M‟) against their maternal relatives by polluting their innocent and impressionable minds against their own mother and maternal grandfather, in order to initiate frivolous criminal proceedings.

5. Respondent No.2/Complainant, the paternal aunt (Bua) of the grandchildren filed a Complaint dated 27.03.2017 (First Complaint) before P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi, wherein she alleged that during the Diwali holidays of 2015, the grandchildren had visited the Petitioner‟s house (maternal grandfather/Nana) and during such visit, Mr. Amit (Maternal Uncle/Mama) had purportedly sexually assaulted the Child „M‟. It is claimed that all the allegations in the First Complaint were restricted to maternal uncle and there was not a whisper of any allegation against the Petitioner, let alone any other family member from the maternal side. The First Complaint dated 27.03.2017 resulted in registration of Zero FIR dated 29.03.2017 at P.S.Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

6. Subsequent to the registration of the Zero FIR, Child „M‟ was subjected to medical examination wherein it was stated that “the child has not attained menarche yet”. Furthermore, a UPT Test of child „M‟ which gave the result as “negative”. This Zero FIR registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar, Rohini was transferred to Loni, Ghaziabad as maternal grandfather i.e. the Petitioner resided there and the purported offence was claimed to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Loni, Ghaziabad.

7. The Respondent No.2 then filed Second Complaint dated 30.05.