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 obscene SMS message on mobile phone of her niece/prosecutrix. When she called at the said mobile phone, the person who picked up the phone started threatening and abusing her and repeatedly called on her mobile phone. The said person also called the complainant at Sukhpura Chowk and he met her there. There was a scuffle took place there and the abovestated person namely Sachin assaulted her. He was apprehended by the police and during his interrogation, he disclosed that the mobile phone was given to him by Sunil @ Monu, the present petitioner and it was the petitioner only, who had sent him there to fight with the complainant. Sunil @ Monu, petitioner was also interrogated by the police and he admitted that he had raped the prosecutrix for the past three years.

3. During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C, who was aged about 20 years was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-2). In her statement, the prosecutrix stated that the petitioner belonged to his village and had been torturing her for the last three years. At that time, she was aged about 17 years and he used to harass her on phone also. He picked her from college. When her family members protested, he threatened to kill her brother and was not even allowing her to get married. He used to torture and threatened to rape her sister also. He abused her physically also.

4. After the presentation of the challan, the Trial Court found a prima facie case under Sections 323,376(2) (n),354D,506 IPC & 3(2) (v) & 3 (1) (c) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and the petitioner was charge-sheeted accordingly on vide order dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure P-3). During the course of trial, the statement of the prosecutrix aged about 22 years was recorded and she refused to support the case of the prosecution. She clearly stated in the statement that she knew the petitioner present in the Court as he belonged to her village. He did not commit any rape on her nor uttered any wrong words regarding her cast. He did not stop her on the way nor he threatened to kill her. She got her statement recorded before the Magistrate on the asking of her aunt i.e. the complainant in the present case. She clearly stated that the petitioner/accused was innocent. Even, in her cross-examination, she admitted that on 13.03.2020, the police had produced her before the Magistrate, who recorded her statement (Ex.P-12). She further stated that she had heard the statement (Ex.P-12) word by word and the said statement was also made by her on the asking of her aunt Hansa Rani, complainant. Even, on 13.03.2020, the police took her to General Hospital, Rohtak, where, her medical examination was conducted and the c