JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the accused petitioners Yuvraj and Maghraj being aggrieved of the order dated 15.5.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jodhpur in connection with F.I.R. No.105/2015 P.S. Mathaniya whereby the learned trial court proceeded to reject the negative F.R. No.198/2016 and took cognizance for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N) I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner Yuvraj and Section 376/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(C)/4 of POCSO Act against the petitioner Maghraj and directed that they be summoned through warrant of arrest. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant victim Mst.L aged 17 years lodged a written report at the Police Station Mathaniya on 8.7.2015 alleging that about three months ago i.e. in the month of April, she had gone to the mobile repair shop of the petitioner Yuvraj at village Tinwari for getting her mobile repaired. Yuvraj told her that the repairing process would take some time and asked her to wait at the shop. He sent for a bottle of Pepsi and two empty glasses, went inside the shop and brought back the glasses filled with Pepsi and offered one to the complainant. The complainant felt drowsy after drinking the cold drink. Taking advantage of her drowsiness, the accused caught hold her hand and took her inside the shop. She regained senses about two hours later upon which Yuvraj told that he had indulged in sexual intercourse with her and had also prepared a video clip of the compromising moments in his mobile. She was threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, the video clip would be circulated and she would be maligned in the society. He further told the victim that he had prepared numerous indecent video clips of other girls and till date, nobody had been able to take action against him. Mst. L got terrified because of the threats given by the accused and thus, did not disclose about the incident to anybody. She requested the accused to delete the video clip but he refused to do so and sent her back after repairing her mobile. There was only one mobile phone in her family and the accused used to call on that mobile number from various phones and talked only if the prosecutrix took the call. She requested the accused to delete the video clip but he refused to do so and sent her back after repairing her mobile. There was only one mobile phone in her family and the accused used to call on that mobile number from various phones and talked only if the prosecutrix took the call. She was repeatedly called by the accused to his shop and upon resistence being shown, she was threatened that the video clip would be made viral. In this manner, the accused blackmailed and called the prosecutrix to his shop and exploited her sexually on no less than 3-4 occasions behind the partition of his shop. Numerous threatening messages were also sent by the accused on the mobile number of her father. About 7-8 days before lodging of the report, the accused Yuvraj once again called her to his shop where she saw Maghraj sitting there from before. Yuvraj told the prosecutrix that she should go with Maghraj and do as he desired. She was forcibly sent behind the shop with Maghraj. She pleaded with Maghraj that he was a fatherly figure for her and should not indulge in the vile act. Maghraj didn't listen to her pleas and told her that he was also having her video clip. He lay down and opened his own clothes and tried to disrobe the prosecutrix, who started shouting on which Maghraj became apprehensive and went away. She was continuously given threats by both the accused to bow down to their illicit deands or face the consequence of the video clip being circulated in the village. She claimed that she became highly tensed up because of these threats and finally mustered the courage and told her parents of these incidents. Her father convened a village meeting and called Maghraj who threatened that he would exploit the girl and would circulate the video clip. 3. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No.105/2015 was lodged at the P.S. Mathaniya and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed investigation and filed a negative Final Report finding the entire story of the victim to be concocted and cooked up. Notice of the Final Report was given to the prosecutrix, who appeared in the court and submitted a protest petition. The Investigating Officer conducted detailed investigation and filed a negative Final Report finding the entire story of the victim to be concocted and cooked up. Notice of the Final Report was given to the prosecutrix, who appeared in the court and submitted a protest petition. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereafter, the trial court proceeded to take cognizance against the accused persons in the above terms by the impugned order dated 15.5.2017 and summoned them through warrant of arrest. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant revision in order to assail the order taking cognizance. 4. Shri Sunil Mehta learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the Investigating Officer assigned detailed and cogent reasons for discarding the case set up by the prosecutrix and finding the case to be false and concocted, he submitted a detailed negative Final Report. The trial court, did not advert to or discuss any of the reasons assigned in the Final Report and took cognizance against the accused in a mechanical fashion and unjustly summoned them to face trial for serious offences. He contended that ex-facie, the story set up by the prosecutrix that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner Yuvraj under the effect of some intoxicant mixed in cold drink is unbelievable. He further urged that so far as the petitioner Maghraj is concerned, the order taking cognizance against him is ex-facie illegal for the reason that even the admitted highest case set up by the prosecutrix in her complaint and in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences attributed to him. With these submissions, Shri Mehta craved that the impugned order should be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and urged that there was no occasion for the minor girl to have foisted a false case of rape against the accused persons while putting her own reputation in the society at stake. They contended that the victim's allegation regarding the accused having subjected her to forcible sexual assault is duly corroborated by the video clipping recovered during investigation and hence, there cannot be any justification to interfere in the well reasoned order taking cognizance passed by the court below. 6. They contended that the victim's allegation regarding the accused having subjected her to forcible sexual assault is duly corroborated by the video clipping recovered during investigation and hence, there cannot be any justification to interfere in the well reasoned order taking cognizance passed by the court below. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the other material placed on record. 7. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is required only to ponder over the existence of a prima-facie case and probative value of the evidence available on record is not to be discussed in detail. Suffice it to say that so far as the petitioner Yuvraj is concerned, from the entire case set up in the revision, and even in the detailed Final Report given by the Investigating Officer, there is no material whatsoever which can even remotely satisfy the court that the victim who is a minor girl had any occasion to falsely implicate the accused Yuvraj. By lodging the case of forcible sexual assault and preparation of the indecent video clipping, she definitely took the risk of putting her own reputation at stake in the society. The Investigating Officer appears to have been swayed by totally extraneous considerations and virtually acted as an adjudicator while giving the negative Final Report. The scope of an Investigating Officer's powers while investigating a case of rape with a minor is to act as a fact finding agency and not to act as an adjudicator. On going through the negative Final Report, I am of the opinion that the Investigating Officer traversed well beyond his domain while giving the negative Final Report qua the petitioner Yuvraj. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order taking cognizance to the extent of the petitioner No.1 Yuvraj. I am least impressed by the argument that the direction to summon the petitioner Yuvraj by warrant of arrest is not justified. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order taking cognizance to the extent of the petitioner No.1 Yuvraj. I am least impressed by the argument that the direction to summon the petitioner Yuvraj by warrant of arrest is not justified. Even if for a moment, it is accepted that the story regarding the prosecutrix having been administered some drug in cold drink and then being subjected to rape under the effect of intoxication is disbelieved and it is presumed that the sexual relations between Yuvraj and the girl were consensual, then too, evidently the victim being a minor, was not competent to give consent for such relations. Having indulged in sexual activities with minor girl, the petitioner Yuvraj is definitely liable to face prosecution for grave offence of forcible sexual assault upon a minor. Thus, the impugned order has to be sustained to the extent of the accused Yuvraj. 8. So far as the accused petitioner No.2 Maghraj is concerned, even if the highest case of prosecution is accepted then too, at best the said accused is alleged to have exposed himself in front of the prosecutrix and tried to disrobe her as well and nothing beyond that. She shouted on which Maghraj became frightened and ran away. The learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioner Maghraj for the offence under Section 3(C)/4 of POCSO Act which deals with penetrative sexual assault and for the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. i.e. attempt to commit rape. 9. If the victim's allegations qua the accused Maghraj are admitted to be true as such, then too the same would not be covered by either penetrative sexual assault or by an attempt to commit rape. The offence if any, made out against the accused Maghraj would be covered by Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 11 of the POCSO Act and the impugned order deserves to be modified to that extent. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the revision deserves to be accepted in part. The offence if any, made out against the accused Maghraj would be covered by Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 11 of the POCSO Act and the impugned order deserves to be modified to that extent. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the revision deserves to be accepted in part. While the impugned order dated 15.5.2017 is upheld in entirety qua the petitioner Yuvraj, the same is set aside to the extent, cognizance was taken against the petitioner No.2 Maghraj for the offences under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(C)/4 of POCSO Act and instead thereof, he shall be summoned through a bailable warrant for the offences under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 11 of POCSO Act. 11. The revision and the stay application are disposed of in the above terms.