IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1417-2025 Date of decision : 10.11.2025 Parvej @ Parvez ...... Petitioner V/S State of Haryana and Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate and Mr. Akash Sheoran, Advocates for petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner – Parvej @ Parvez has filed criminal revision against impugned order dated 01.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh vide which application for amendment of charge has been allowed by adding the offence under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and referred the case to Special Court dealing with the said cases in a wrongful and arbitrary manner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the facts of the case and the evidence on record were not rightly appreciated by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. In fact, a false FIR has been lodged on the statement of father of the victim, according to which she was sexually exploited by the petitioner and was further threatened to viral obscene photographs and video. Copy of FIR No.261 dated 11.08.2023, registered under Sections 365, 376, 506 of IPC, at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh is Annexure P-1. On completion of investigation, challan was presented on 07.12.2023 (Annexure P- 2). During the proceedings of trial, prosecution had examined as many as 06 prosecution witnesses, including the statement of victim as PW-2 (Annexure P- 3). At this stage, the complainant filed application (Annexure P-4), seeking amendment of charge by adding the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act. The said application was contested by filing reply (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the contents of FIR, statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she did not level any specific allegation regarding sexual exploitation prior to 2020. Later on, the victim gave improved version as PW-2 (Annexure P-3), where she referred to the dates when she was ravished by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner also referred to the testimony of Dr. Savita Rani, examined as PW-1 (Annexure P-7), where again no such incident was disclosed while recording her version at the time of preparing her MLR. At the time of registration of FIR, the alleged victim was major. The learned trial Court failed to consider the improved version given by the victim as PW-2 and wrongly allowed the application by passing impugned order dated 01.05.2025. In fact, no offence is made out under the provisions of POCSO Act and the case has been wrongly referred to the Special Court. It is submitted that impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh may kindly be set aside by accepting the present criminal revision.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing State confirmed the factual position. Learned counsel representing private complainant also pointed out that the facts of the case and the documents on record were rightly considered by learned trial Court while passing order dated 01.05.2025. The FIR was lodged on 11.08.2023, but even prior to this, the petitioner had physically abused the victim several times. This fact is evident from the statement of victim recorded as PW-2 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the case, the application filed by private respondent/complainant was allowed and the application to amend the charges was accepted and the case was referred to the Special Court.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. FIR has been lodged on the statement of complainant who is father of the victim. The contents of FIR (Annexure P-1) indicate that at the time of lodging the FIR, the victim was about 18 years of age. As per the contents therein, it is mentioned that the vi