The High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings are exercised sparingly; when a case is at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is the appropriate forum to determine the existence of a prima facie case.

:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, “BNSS, 2023”), invoking the inherent powers of this Court to seek quashment of the proceedings in S.C. No. 5 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Sessions and District Judge at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 - State.

3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that upon a representation lodged by respondent No. 2, the de facto complainant, a case was registered as F.I.R. No. 140 of 2023 on the file of Sujatha Nagar Police Station. The allegation is that the petitioner sexually harassed the victim girl, who is stated to be his daughter, and that on 30.10.2023 at about 4:30 p.m., he took her to Vijayawada and sent her back during the night of 01.11.2023. On the basis of these allegations, offences under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (kidnapping), and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) have been invoked against the petitioner. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the case has been taken cognizance as S.C. No. 5 of 2024.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the material collected during investigation does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of either Section 363 IPC or Section 12 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that even the statements of the de facto complainant and the victim girl, as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C./corresponding provisions of BNSS, do not make out any act amounting to “sexual harassment” within the meaning of Section 12 of the POCSO Act. It is further contended that the statements indicate that the victim girl accompanied the petitioner at her own instance, and therefore, the essential ingredients of “taking” or “enticing” a minor out of the lawful guardianship, as contemplated under Section 363 IPC, are not satisfied.

4.2. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, wherein it was held that where a minor voluntarily accompanies the accused and there is no active inducement or taking, the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship may not be attracted. It is thus argued that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. However, it is fairly submitted that the matter is presently pending before the trial Court at the stage of framing of charges.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the issues raised by the petitioner pertain to appreciation of the material collected during investigation and that the case is presently at the stage of consideration for framing of charges. It is contended that the trial Court is competent to evaluate the record in terms of the settled principles governing Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provisions under the BNSS, 2023), and that interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (inherent powers of the High Court) is analogous to the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inh