KHYALI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 9/2/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.7/2024 whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Ss. 354D of IPC and Ss. 11(iii),(iv)/12 of POCSO Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted a written report at concerned Police Station regarding abduction of his minor daughter from the home by some unknown persons. On the said complaint, Police registered FIR No.0214/2023 for offence under Sec. 363 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the present petitioner for offence under Sec. 354-D IPC and Sec. 11(iii)(iv)/12 of POCSO Act before the competent court and after arguments, charges were framed against the petitioner for aforesaid offence. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim 'G' in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically deposed that she left home out of her own free will and roamed for about two months at so many places. Importantly, she explicitly states that during this time, no wrongdoing was committed against her by anyone, including the present petitioner, and that she did not meet or have any interaction with him. Furthermore, her sole allegation pertains to the petitioner showing her adult videos, which, in isolation, does not constitute a criminal offence unless it is proven that such conduct was accompanied by coercion, exploitation, or other unlawful acts. Counsel submits that in view of above, no offence as framed by the trial court is made out against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order of framing charge being illegal and perverse, deserves to be quashed and set aside.