(1.) Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking quashment of charge-sheet filed against him by jurisdictional police in the criminal court alleging the commission of offence under Section 21 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as "P0SCO Act").
(2.) The aforesaid quashment has been sought by the petitioner on the following factual backdrop:-
(3.) Mr.Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initiation and continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act for non-reporting the commission of offence by co-accused Indrajeet Thakur under Section 4 of the POSCO Act as envisaged under Section 19(1) of the POSCO Act is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the law as co-accused Indrajeet Thakur is still facing trial and it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed offences under Section 377, 506 Part-II, 511 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act and unless and until he is convicted for the aforesaid offences, there is no reason to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act for non-reporting the commission of the Act under Sections 4 & 6 of the POSCO Act. He would further submit that the prosecution ought to have waited till the principal offences for which co-accused Indrajeet Thakur is charged are determined finally by the jurisdictional criminal Court/Special Judge (POSCO). He would further submit that simultaneous prosecution of the petitioner with coaccused Indrajeet Thakur, before the co-accused is held guilty for the principal offences, runs contrary to the settled law in this behalf. He would also submit that even otherwise, he was not having exclusive knowledge of offences in question, even otherwise, on 21.8.2015 at 10.30 a.m. the matter was reported to Kanker Police and Kanker Police immediately started investigation and the petitioner was also arrested on 22.8.2015 i.e. on the very next day, therefore, he has no such opportunity to investigate the matter and report the matter to the police as required under Section 19(2) of the POSCO Act, therefore, the initiation and continuance of prosecution even if taking the entire charge-sheet in its face value as it is, does not disclose the prima- facie offence under Section 21(2) of the POSCO Act against the petitioner. Therefore, prosecution against the petitioner in the jurisdictional criminal Court being abuse of process of law deserves to be quashed.