IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 908 of 2025 Sarfaraj Ansari, aged about 29 years, son of Mustak Ansari, resident of village- Parej, Rahmat Nagar, P.O.-

Banji, P.S.- Mandu, Dist.- Ramgarh, Jharkhand ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for quashing the cognizance order dated 20.09.2024 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. case no. 170 of 2024 corresponding to Special POCSO case no. 22 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 96 and 64 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I –cum-

Special Judge (POCSO), Ramgarh.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report, submitted by the brother of the alleged victim, contending therein, that the petitioner has procured his minor sister for solemnization of marriage with her, Mandu (W.B.) P.S. case no. 170 of 2024 was registered. The police took up investigation of the case and after investigation of the case, the police considered the statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, wherein the victim has categorically stated that she voluntarily went with the petitioner to Chhattisgarh. The police also found that the claim of the informant that the date of birth of the alleged victim is 07.05.2007 is a false claim and in fact, the date of birth of the victim is 10.04.2004 and on the date of occurrence, the alleged victim was a major lady and she having gone voluntarily with the petitioner, no case was made out and the police submitted Final Report intimating therein that the facts are not true and did not send up the petitioner for trial. Learned Special Judge, Ramgarh, differed with the Final Report submitted by police and by observing that if the date of birth of the victim is considered as 07.05.2007, then the victim is a minor girl and by thus observing, found sufficient material to make out prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 96 and 64 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, having been committed by the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sister of the informant was in love with the petitioner and she was aged about 20 years on the date of occurrence and only to harass the petitioner; as the informant was not approving the relationship of the petitioner with the alleged victim, with the false and manufactured date of birth of the victim, the written report was submitted, on the basis of the which, the FIR of this case was registered but the claim of the informant that the date of birth of the victim is 07.05.2007, was found to be false and her date of birth was found to be 10.04.2004 during investigation of the case. Learned Special Judge, Ramgarh by differing with this finding of fact during the investigation of the case, without any rhyme or region, has committed a grave error in taking the cognizance of the offence, without any reasoning, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Special Judge, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the settled principle of law that the Magistrate can disagree with the Final Form submitted by the police, and take cognizance, even