Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2018 of High Court of Gujarat by which judgment Criminal Revision Application filed by complainant-respondent No.2 has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 01.12.2016 of Additional District & Sessions Judge, who had rejected the application filed by the prosecution for proceeding against the appellants in Special POCSO Case No. 10/2016.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as emerged from the material on record are as follows:- 2.1 The complainant-respondent No.2 lodged a First Information Report on 27.05.2015 under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO ACT") that her daughter Parvati aged 14 years has been abducted by one Natuji Bachuji Thakor between the night of 26.05.2015 and morning hour of 27.05.2015. It was further alleged that Natuji Bachuji Thakor used to visit my daughter and has given a mobile phone to her, after coming to know of which fact, complainant had warned Natuji. After receiving the First Information Report, Police conducted investigation and submitted a Charge Sheet under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO ACT against Natuji Bachuji Thakor, the accused. The statement of victim was also recorded by the Police, who, in her statement, had taken the name of Natuji alone. Special POCSO Case No. 10/2016 was registered and trial proceeded against the accused. The statement of PW3 Kanchanben, the mother of victim was recorded. The statement of victim was also recorded as PW4. 2.2 An application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, where it was stated that in the statement of victim, Pw4, she has taken name of Labhuji, Shashikant and Jituji also, who had taken the victim to Morbi in the jeep. Prayer was made to proceed against the appellants also by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. The application was opposed by the appellants. It was stated in the objection that in the statement, which was recorded by Police on 03.07.2015, i.e. immediately after the alleged incident, she nowhere in her long statement has taken the name of the appellants and it was only in the statement, which was recorded in the Court after more than one year on 18.06.2016 that she has stated that the appellants, the friends of accused were also alongwith accused Natuji. 2.3 The learned POCSO Judge after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties rejected the application. The POCSO Judge also observed that prima facie it appears that with mala fide intention, the names of the appellants have been disclosed. The complainant filed a Criminal Revision against the order dated 01.12.2016 rejecting the application, which has been allowed by the High Court by impugned judgment dated 13.04.2018. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellants have come up in this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that High Court without there being any valid reason for exercising Jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has reversed the order of POCSO Judge rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that there was no evidence on record on the basis of which it can even be prima facie found that appellants had also committed the offence. Learned counsel submits that judgment of High Court does not take into consideration the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, 2014 3 SCC 92.;