BANOTHU JYOTHSNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the propriety of the order dtd. 13/3/2023 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereby the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner for the offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act') has been returned with an endorsement to present before the appropriate Court

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

(3.) The relevant facts in brief are that the revision petitioner had filed police report against respondent No.2 alleging offences under Ss. 354, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and the POCSO Act. As the police failed to act upon the report, a private complaint under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') was filed before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda on 13/2/2023. Learned Magistrate by endorsing that the record is Prima facie disclosing an offences under the POCSO Act, returned the complaint to present the same before the competent Court. Thereupon, the revision petitioner approached the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, which is designated POCSO Court. Learned Sessions Judge by observing that under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate of I Class is competent to take cognizance and to refer the complaint to police under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation and though it is designated Court to try the offence punishable under the POCSO Act, cannot entertain the private complaint, returned the file. Hence, the present revision.