ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner - sole accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings pursuant to the complaint and FIR registered as Crime No.243/2025 dated 31.05.2025 against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023 and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the 1^st respondent - State as well as learned counsel for 2^nd respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the alleged victim Kum.Bindu is the niece of the 2^nd respondent - de facto complainant, who initially filed a complaint dated 28.05.2025 registered as an FIR in Crime No.229/2025 as a missing complaint on the ground that the said Kum.Bindu who did not have any parents and was being looked after by the 2^nd respondent was missing. In the said complaint, the 2^nd respondent - de facto complainant stated that the victim was aged about 18 years and was studying inB.Com. I year in Seshadripuram college, Yelahanka, Bangalore and staying in the Hostel. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent - de facto complainant filed one more complaint on 30.05.2025 registered as an FIR in Crime No.243/2025 interalia alleging that the victim was aged about 17 years 6 months and that the petitioner had kidnapped and cheated her and also sexually assaulted the victim and married her, thereby committing the alleged offences. In pursuance of the said complaint, the 1^st respondent - police authorities registered the impugned FIR against the petitioner - accused, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the 1^st respondent -State submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the 2^nd respondent initially filed a complaint on 28.05.2025 specifically contending that the victim was aged about 18 years and without either referring to or naming the petitioner and did not making any allegations as regards the victim being kidnapped or cheated or sexually assaulted by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent merely stated that the victim was missing; however, subsequently, on 31.05.2025, changed his version and filed the impugned complaint interalia alleging that the victim was aged about 17 years 6 months, which clearly indicates that the said allegation was an afterthought and cannot be countenanced or accepted by this Court in the present petition.

6. Along with the petition, the petitioner has produced copies of the SSLC marks card, PUC marks card and Aadhar card of the victim, all of which, clearly indicate that the petitioner was born on 15.04.2006 and was accordingly, more than 18 years as on the date of the incident; though it is sought to be contended that the alleged birth certificate of the victim shows her date of birth as 16.11.2007, it is relevant to state that when school / college records are available, they would take precedence over the birth certificate in the light of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the JJ Act') as held by the Apex Court in the case of P.Yuvaprakash vs. State - 2023 SCC Online SC 846, wherein it is held as under:-

“11. Before discussing the merits of the contentions and evidence in this case, it is necessary to extract Section 34 of the POCSO Act which reads as follows:

“34. Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. - (1) Where any offence under this Act is committed by a child, such child shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016).

(2) If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is a child or not, such question shall be determined