KULDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dtd. 14/3/2022 passed by the learned Special Court POCSO Act & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1, Srigangangar in Case No.45/2019 whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. and has taken the cognizance of the offence under Sec. 16/17 of POCSO Act against the petitioners and has called them by way of bailable warrant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits a specific allegation has been made against Gurpreet Singh for committing rape with the victim and no specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners and both the petitioners are women. Counsel further submits that after thorough investigation, Police submitted Final Report in this case, that no case is made out against the petitioners but later on after recording the statement of victim (PW-1), complainant filed an application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial Court and took cognizance against the petitioners. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. [AIR (2021) SC 5107]. The order of the trial Court is per-se illegal and without assigning any reason and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, so the order may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the specific averment has been made by the victim in the FIR as well as statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. so also in the Court statement as PW-1, against the present petitioners, therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for from this Court.