A court is not required to discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. if the First Information Statement contains prima facie allegations sufficient to frame charges, even if the subsequent statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are less elaborate regarding specific acts.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948 CRL.REV.PET NO. 569 OF 2026 CRIME NO.109/2024 OF EDATHALA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM SC NO.910 OF 2024 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, ALUVA REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RAJENDRAN.P AGED 64 YEARS, PONNALAYAM HOUSE MUTHIRAKKATTATTAMUGHAL, MANNACHERRY, N.A.D, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683563 BY ADVS.

SHRI.S.SAJU SRI.A.V.SAJAN SMT.DONA PENTALIAN SMT.ANJANA JAYASURYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in SC No.910/2024 pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Aluva, arising out of Crime No.109/2024 of Edathala Police Station. He filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge, dismissing his application under Section

227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge.

2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in the 164 Cr.PC. statement given by the victim, there was no allegation of penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, according to him, the learned Special Judge was not justified in dismissing his discharge application.

3. The revision petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in the FI statement, the allegations clearly makes out the offences under the POSCO Act also.

4. On a perusal of the FI statement, it can be seen that the victim, who was a 3^rd standard student, specifically alleged that the revision petitioner sexually abused him. It is true that in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, he only stated that the revision petitioner hugged him and kissed him. Since in the FI statement, he has specifically stated that the revision petitioner sexually abused him, prima facie the offence under various provisions of the POCSO Act and Section 447 of IPC are made out, the prayer for discharge is liable to be rejected.

Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Fast Track Special Court so as to call for any interference.

In the result, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed.