FARHAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision under Section 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner Farhan Khan has challenged the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.115/13, framing charges for offence under Section 354-A(1), 354(D) of IPC and 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for sake of brevity called "the Act" hereafter).

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the police station Khajrana had wrongly registered an FIR dated 26.8.2013 against the petitioner Farhan Khan. The complainant prosecutrix is aged 15 years and stated that she had gone to take tuitions and was returning to her home when the accused petitioner Farhan and another Afsar started following her and suddenly he caught hold of her hand and Afsar put her hand around waist and stated that she should go with them to the bypass road; when she started shouting Anish came to the spot and the accused fled away and hence the FIR was lodged. The police recorded the statements and statement of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter the accused were arrested and on being produced before the Magistrate, the accused filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. which was also dismissed by the trial Court. The accused abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has basically challenged the framing of charge; stating that the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded after 26 days. Moreover the petitioner was a computer trainer and belongs to a respectable family and has been falsely implicated. Moreover Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reads thus:- "7. Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault." And Counsel stated that the provisions of Section 7 for Sexual Offences were thus not at all fulfilled; since under the circumstances there are only allegations of the petitioner having caught hold hand of the prosecutrix. Similarly provisions of Section 354-A and 354-D of the IPC were not attracted. And since the FIR has also not been sent to the concerned Magistrate, the offence under Section 354 of the IPC cannot be imposed and the order dated 18.10.2013 framing charge were, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. Counsel prayed for quashment of the same.