Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Una (learned Trial Court) vide which the charges were framed against the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the p.resent petition are that the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the comHmissi.on of offences punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and Section 21 of the Protectiofn of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. It was asserted that the victim was aged 14 years. The police visited her htome on 05.10.2023 with the village Pradhan. They showued a video to the victim’s mother (the informant) in wohich the accused Sandesh Dogra was found hugging thCe victim. The victim revealed on enquiry that she had gone to the shop of the accused on 02.10.2023 to purchase some articles. The accused gave her a toffee and took her inside the shop, where he touched her breasts. He had removed her Salwar Hand his pants. She did not disclose anything else. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. It was found during the investigation that Gaurav @ Gogi had recorded the incident when the accused was hugging the victim. He had forwarded the video to Robinjeet Singh (the present petitioner), who forwarded it to the Panchayat Pradhan. The Panchayat Pradhan informed the police about the video. The police seized the mobile phones of Gaurav Sharma, Anand @ Nandu and Robinjeet Singh. As per the report of the analysis, the. video depicting the victim’s molestation was found in the data extracted from Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3. The data coHuld n.ot be extracted from the mobile phone Ex-1 to Ex-3. Hence, the police filed the challan and supplementary challan befofre the learned Trial Court.

3. The accused Gaurav @ Gogi filed an application seeking his discharge. Learrned Trial Court held that the mobile phone of Gaurav @ Gougi was found damaged and no data could be extracted from iot. The video was found in the memory cards, i.e., Q-1 to Q-3C, produced by Pradhan, who claimed that it was sent to her by Sandeep and to Sandeep by Robinjeet Singh. Hence, accused Gaurav @ Gogi was discharged. However, the charges were ordered to be proved against Sandesh Dogra and Robinjeet HSingh.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused Robinjeet Singh has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing charges against him. No video was recovered from the mobile phones of Gaurav, Anand @ Nandu and the petitioner. The petitioner should not have been charged for the commission of any offence. The learned Trial Court also did not fram.e any charges against Sandeep, who is alleged to have circulated the video to other persons. Therefore, it was praHyed th.at the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. f

5. I have heard Mr G urinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitionerr and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate Gueneral for the respondent/State.

6. Mr Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court had discharged theh othe r accused on the ground that no video was found in their gmobile phones. No video was also found in the mobile phone of ithe petitioner, and the petitioner could not have been treated differently from the co-accused. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was specifically named by the witnesses as the person who had forwarded