JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. There is a dispute regarding age of the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity). For committing rape and offence under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter called as 'POCSO Act'), the investigating agency has sent petitioner as accused for abovesaid offences. 2. Victim, as per admission form of year 2004 took admission in the Nursery Class in Lawrence Day Public School and her date of birth is recorded therein as 30.8.2001.In Lawrence Day Public School, the victim studied from Nursery Class to Eighth standard and later appeared in the matriculation examination. In the matriculation examination certificate, the age of the victim is recorded as 30.8.2001. 3. At the behest of the petitioner, it was urged that the prosecutrix earlier had taken admission in Taramani National Public School, wherein she studied only for one year and thereafter, left the studies. The certificate of Taramani National Public School says that the victim between the year 2001 to 2002 took admission in Nursery Class and in the record of said school date of birth of victim is recorded as 14.5.1997. 4. Thus, two disputed questions regarding age of victim are involved:- (i) Which is the school where victim took admission first and, (ii) What is date of birth of the victim. 5. From probable circumstances no reliance can be placed upon the certificate issued by Taramani National Public School. It is unimaginable that the victim took admission in Nursery Class in the year 2001 and after 2002 she left the studies and then again took admission in Lawrence Day Public School in year 2004 in the Nursery Class. 6. Taking into consideration the certificate of Lawrence Day Public School alongwith matriculation certificate, there is serious doubt regarding veracity of the certificate issued by Taramani National Public School. 7. On the touchstone of test prescribed under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, the certificate issued by Taramani National Public School will fail. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that this certificate was only relied by the accused to come out of the rigour of the provisions of POCSO Act and to obtain bail. 8. This Court leave to the discretion of the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the officials of Taramani National Public School. 9. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that this certificate was only relied by the accused to come out of the rigour of the provisions of POCSO Act and to obtain bail. 8. This Court leave to the discretion of the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the officials of Taramani National Public School. 9. A joint reading of Section 94 read with Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Rules, 2007, makes it abundantly clear that in the absence of matriculation certificate and school first attended, or in absence of birth entry, the court has to follow the procedure prescribed for holding ossification test to determine the age of victim or accused. 10. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Shahzad vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 11. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 32498/2017 [ManuUP/2282/2018]. Judgment cited is on the facts of that case, as it was held that between matriculation certificate and school first attended, since there was difference of seven years, medico-legal examination ought to be conducted. 12. In the present case, the certified relied by the accused issued by Taramani National Public School in itself is doubtful. Therefore, there is no need for resorting to ossification test. 13. At the cost of repetition, it is unimaginable that a student, in the present scenario when every citizen is conscious about the education, will take admission in Nursery Class for one year from 2001 to 2002 and then will not study for three years and thereafter shall again take admission in the year 2004 in Nursery Class in another school. Therefore, matriculation certificate lend corroboration to the certificate issued by Lawrence Day Public School. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suhani & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4532/2018, SLP No. 8001/2018, decided on 26.4.2018. 15. This Court has also followed the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Suhani, where newly married couple came for protection. In the case of Suhani and other cases not only the quashing of FIR was sought but grant of protection was also prayed for. 15. This Court has also followed the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Suhani, where newly married couple came for protection. In the case of Suhani and other cases not only the quashing of FIR was sought but grant of protection was also prayed for. In Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, full address trial has not taken place, they were summary proceedings and therefore, in the judgment in the case of Suhani and judgment given by this Court, neither rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 nor Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been considered. Those are judgments where charges were not framed. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgment of Suhani and Shahzad or where in cases protection was given to the newly married couple, is misplaced, as in present case trial is scheduled to commence. Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all arguments regarding age of victim during the course of trial by questioning the veracity of the documents relied by the prosecution, by extending cross-examination or resorting to defence evidence to prove document relied by defence. 16. It is well settled legal proposition that at the time of framing of charge, presumptive opinion is to be formulated so that later court is not found wanting for having erred not to have framed the charge under the provisions of POCSO Act. At the time of framing of charge, if one has to err it should be on the side of caution as, at final stage of trial benefit of doubt has to accrue to the accused. 17. In view of above, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 18. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial court shall strictly confine itself to the evidence led by the parties regarding age of the victim.