C528/35/2025 on 20 January, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

C528/35/2025 on 20 January, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office Notes, reports,
                   orders or proceedings
SL.
         Date      or    directions  and                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   Registrar's order with
                   Signatures

      20.01.2025                            C528 No.35 of 2025
                                            Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel
for the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Mr. Pradeep Lohani and Mr.
Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that this is a case with peculiar facts where the
present petitioner /accused is a person, who gave
information and provided evidence of the offence to
the police, which is punishable under POCSO Act,
against the main accused Dilbar Khan; that, the
petitioner provided video clip of the offence
consequent to which charge sheet has been filed and
cognizance has been taken against the main accused.

4. Counsel for the petitioner/accused would
further submit that it is a bounden duty of every
citizen to provide information and evidence to the
police/Investigating Agency of any offence; that, the
petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 15
of the POCSO Act inter alia; that, the investigation
has been biased in order to give advantage and favour
to the main accused Dilbar Khan; that, the statements
of the victims/prosecutrix have been distorted by the
investigating agency to give benefit to the main
accused Dilbar Khan.

5. Counsel for the State would fairly concede that
it is a duty of each citizen to provide information of
commission of any offence and also give the
evidence, if he has any, which can help in judicious
investigation of the case; that, the language of
Section 15 of the POCSO Act also says that offence
is made out only when any person, who stores or
possesses pornographic material in any form
involving a child, but fails to delete or destroy or
report the same to the designated authority.

6. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that the petitioner is a person who gave the video-clip
of the incident to the concerned S.H.O. at the time of
lodging of the FIR against the main accused Dilbar
Khan; that the petitioner was also accompanying
parents of the victim/prosecutrix, therefore, no case is
made out against the present petitioner.

7. State counsel seeks and is granted time to file
detailed counter affidavit especially on the fact
whether the present petitioner is the person who
accompanied parents of the victim/prosecutrix to the
police station at the time of lodging FIR against the
main accused Dilbar Khan and gave video clip to the
S.H.O.

8. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the matter needs deliberation.

9. Admit the petition.

10. Issue notice to respondent no.2 through
ordinary process and registered post
acknowledgement due as well as by Email and
WhatsApp, if available.

11. Steps to be taken within three weeks.

12. Put up on 11.03.2025.

13. Meanwhile, proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No.33 of 2024, ‘State Vs. Dilbar Khan and
another’ pending in the court of Special Sessions
Judge, Chamoli, so far as it relates to the present
petitioner, shall remain stayed till further orders.

14. It is clarified that criminal proceedings as
against other co-accused shall continue as per law.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
Vacation Judge
20.01.2025
SS