JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 375/2018, registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur Rural. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix does not want to pursue the case further as same would cause stigma. It is contended that the petitioner himself was a child and thus no offence cannot be said to be committed under the POCSO Act as the terminology used in Section 3 of the POCSO Act uses the word "person". It is also contended that when prosecutrix does not want to pursue the matter, the appropriate course is to quash the FIR. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " Sajith S. v. State of Kerala in Criminal Misc. No. 7251/2016, decided on 07.11.2016." 4. Judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner is under Section 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, whereas the present case is under Section 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, hence, the same cannot be read in favour of the petitioner. 5. I have perused the petition and have also perused the FIR. 6. There is a direct allegation in the FIR against the petitioner of committing offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act. The word "person" appearing in Section 3 includes a child. Sub clause (d) of Sub-Section (2) defines a child which means any person below the age of eighteen years. The terminology uses in Section 3 of the POCSO Act is a "person". Thus, even if a child commits an offence, he was to deal as a person as per Section 3 of the Act. Further Section 4 clarifies by using the terminology "whoever commits penetrative sexual assault dully shall be punished" 7. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that a child cannot be dealt with a person under Section 3 of the Act cannot be thus be accepted. Prosecutrix in this case as per the FIR has become pregnant because of the alleged offence and Section 29 of the Act provides that presumption and when an offence is committed under Section 3, 5, 7 & 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved. Prosecutrix in this case as per the FIR has become pregnant because of the alleged offence and Section 29 of the Act provides that presumption and when an offence is committed under Section 3, 5, 7 & 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved. There being a specific allegation in the FIR merely because now the prosecturix has compounded the case would not entitle the petitioner to claim quashing of FIR. The offence being an offence against the State and has been committed with a minor, as a result of which she became pregnant, I am not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing of FIR. 8. The Criminal Misc. Petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay petition stands disposed.