112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:24.03.2026 Sunil @Monu …Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and Ors. …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

None for the respondent No.2.

Mr. Tanvir S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned orders dated 01.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby, the charge under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act (hereinafter referred to as the “P.O.C.S.O Act”) has been ordered to be framed, apart from charges framed earlier.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one FIR No.181, dated 13.03.2020, under Sections 34,354-D,376,506 of IPC & 3 of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Police Station Rohtak City, Rohtak, Haryana (Annexure P-1) was ordered to be registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by Hansa Rani. In the complaint/FIR (Annexure P-1), the complainant alleged that on 13.03.2020, she had noticed ob