The court examined the applicability of IPC Sections 366A and 370 regarding sexual assault and determined the trial's jurisdiction over intent and charge framing.

ORDER

The accused in S.C.No.571/2019 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Alappuzha (Special Court for Trial of Offences Relating to Atrocities against Women and Children including POCSO cases), has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case, and also to quash Annexure V order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, who is a former Police OfÏcer, has been booked by the Punnapra Police, for the commission of offences under Sections 341 , 354, 366A and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Section 9 (a)(i) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 . It is alleged that the petitioner, after obtaining the phone number of a 16-year-old girl from her lover, asked that girl to accompany him for the purpose of interrogation in connection with a case, took her to a lodge room and resorted to sexual assault, after making her drink liquor. The girl is said to have been rescued by the local people, who had assembled there, hearing her cries.

3. In the present petition it is contended that the Trial Court did not consider the applicability of any of the Sections incorporated in the Final Report, and passed the impugned order upon peripheral observations of the principles governing the framing of charges.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.S.Rajeev, submitted that he is confining the challenge in this petition to the non-applicability of Section 366A and Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , in the facts and circumstances of the case. Referring to the ingredients of IPC , the learned counsel pointed out that the aforesaid penal provision, is prima facie not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, since there is no case for the prosecution that the minor girl was taken to the lodge room by the petitioner for forced or seduced illicit intercourse with another person.

5. Per contra, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the question whether the intention of the petitioner was to seduce the minor girl to have illicit intercourse with another person or not, cannot be decided at this stage of the proceedings. It is thus argued that only at the time of trial, it could be ascertained whether the actual intention of the petitioner was to have the girl seduced or forced to have illicit intercourse with other persons.

6. In support of the above argument, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that even the statement given by the victim would reveal that her phone number was collected by the petitioner from another person, who had informed her that the said phone number was given to the petitioner. Thus, it is pointed out that the involvement of a third person, cannot be ruled out at this stage of the proceedings.

7. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the victim is said to have been rescued by the local people, before the petitioner could proceed further with the sexual assault upon her. It is not known whether the chances of involvement of a third person happened to be scuttled due to the intervention of the local people, who had assembled there, hearing the cries of the defacto complainant. It is true that in the Final Report filed by the Investigating OfÏcer, there is no indication about the involvement of a third person in the alleged sexual assault upon the victim. So also, the victim has stated that her phone number was given to the petitioner by her lover, and that her love