ORDER : The prayer in the above Crl.M.C filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows: “............to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case by quashing Annexure-A-2, charge Sheet and all further proceedings in S.C.No.481/2018 of the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam, arising from Crime No.997/2018 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam so as to secure the ends of justice.” 2. Heard Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State of Kerala and Sri.Akhil Bhaskar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (minor victim girl). 3. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the impugned Annexure-A1 Crime No.997/2018 of Pambadi Police Station, Kottayam, for offence punishable under Sec.354A of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the first information statement given by the minor victim girl then aged 13 years on 15.08.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on the previous day (14.08.2018) at about 2.45 p.m. in the afternoon. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the Special Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kottayam and the case is now pending as Sessions Case S.C No.481/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kottayam. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there are no proper materials even in the admitted prosecution materials as revealed by Annexure-A1 to implicate the petitioner for criminal culpability for the alleged offence of Sec.354A of the IPC. Further it is pointed out that the minor victim girl has not disclosed the commission of any offence by the petitioner, except making certain allegations which does not disclose any such offence. The further case of the petitioner is that on coming to know that the said allegation in the FIS will not constitute any offence, the prosecution has changed the story and the 2nd respondent minor victim girl has given a new version adding embellishments and improvisations to the prosecution case and at the same time, the other eye witnesses have given statements to the police which also form part of Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet, wherein they would say that no such incident as alleged by the minor victim girl has happened in the school van at the relevant time. It appears that the petitioner is operating a school van for transportation of school children in which the minor victim girl and some of the charge witnesses who are the students of the school have been travelling for taking them from their residences to the school concerned. 4. The pertinent allegation therein is that on 14.08.2018 at about 2.45 p.m., when the minor victim girl and some of the other students have returning back from the school to their respective residences in the school van, the petitioner was also there in the van. By about then, most of the girl students who were her friends had got down from the van. Then she and two other boy students sat on the last seat of the van. Thereupon, the petitioner had taken a nearby to the minor victim girl and that he had hit her hands with his shoulders. That the minor victim girl did not like the behaviour of the petitioner and she showed her indignation and told the petitioner to go and sit in another seat. Thereupon, the petitioner had changed the seat and sat on a different seat. Thereafter, she had alighted from the van and reached the house. Incidentally, it is also stated that the petitioner had told her then that she should not reveal the said incident to anyone, etc. Hence, going by the admitted allegations in Annexure-A1 FIS, the main and pertinent allegation raised by the 2nd respondent- minor victim girl against the petitioner is as follows: xxx xxx 5. The core of the allegation is that the petitioner had hit on the girl’s hand using his shoulder. From the said allegation itself, it is not possible for anyone to infer or impute that the said act has been done by the petitioner with any sexual intent. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the alleged touching of the body is an act of the petitioner, whereby he has hit on the hand of the girl using his shoulder. Therefore, this Court is constrained to take the view that the said act by itself cannot be the basis to impute any sexual intent of the petitioner. Therefore, the said act of the petitioner cannot be termed as sexual assault, etc. as understood in the POCSO Act. Sec.7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act defines sexual assault as follows: “7. Therefore, the said act of the petitioner cannot be termed as sexual assault, etc. as understood in the POCSO Act. Sec.7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act defines sexual assault as follows: “7. Sexual assault Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” True that the abovesaid Act involves physical contact, but in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the accused can be imputed with sexual intent in doing the said act of hitting the girl’s hand with his shoulder. However, because of the improvised case put up with the final report/charge sheet, the prosecution has alleged that the offences have been altered to those as per Secs.11(i), (iv), which is punishable under Sec.12 of the POCSO Act. Sec.11 of the POCSO Act reads as follows: “11. Sexual harassment A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,- (i) utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or (ii) makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or (iii) shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or (iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or (v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or (vi) entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor.” 6. Since the accused cannot be imputed with sexual intent for having done the abovesaid act, there cannot be any quarrel that the said act of the accused hitting the hand of the victim with his shoulder cannot constitute any offence under Sec.11 of the POCSO Act, which is punishable as per Sec.12 thereof, going by the facts alleged in Annexure-A1 FIS. Now coming to Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet, it is seen that a improvised case set up therein. There the allegation raised by the minor victim girl, as can be seen from internal page No.6 of Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet is that she would allege that the petitioner had not only touched on her hand but also that he had lay his back on her body and further that she felt that touched her abdomen, etc. The relevant portion of the statement of the minor victim girl given on internal page No.6 of Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet reads as follows : (see page No.21 of the paper book of this Crl.M.C) xxx xxx 7. As stated hereinabove, the original offence as per Sec.354A of the IPC as alleged in Annexure-A1 FIR has now been altered in Annexure-A2 final report and the offence alleged therein is that as per Sec.11 (i) (iv) read with Sec.12 of the POCSO Act. From a reading of the abovesaid prosecution materials, this Court is constrained to take the view that the new version put up by the minor victim girl in Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet is nothing but a drastic improvisation and embellishment from her initial version. In that regard, the abovesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the complainant was made aware that the allegation in the FIR will not constitute any offence, etc., she has been tutored to give a new and coloured version, assumes great importance. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available copy of the Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement given by the minor victim girl before the learned Magistrate. A reading of the said statement would indicate that the learned Magistrate had pertinently asked a question to the minor victim girl whether she has come to the court voluntarily and whether she is speaking out the truth of the matter. A reading of the said statement would indicate that the learned Magistrate had pertinently asked a question to the minor victim girl whether she has come to the court voluntarily and whether she is speaking out the truth of the matter. To the said pertinent query raised by the learned Magistrate, the minor victim girl has rather candidly stated that the police official from the Pambadi Police Station has tutored her to give the version. This Court is in a way rather happy that at least the minor victim girl has honestly confessed before the learned Magistrate that her new version given is one as tutored by the police officials of the Pambadi Police Station, where the crime has been registered. But cases of this nature causes great disturbances to the system and to the courts and the prosecution agency in particular. When the initial allegation was only to the effect that the accused had hit on the girl's hand with his shoulder, she would develop a new case in Annexure-A2 that he had done not only that but also that he had laid his back on her body and further that she felt that he touched her abdomen, etc. It is also relevant to note that what she has alleged is that, she felt that her abdomen was being touched by the petitioner. If as a matter of fact, the accused had touched her abdomen while sitting nearby her that could have been easily seen by her with her open eyes and the very such statement would clearly show that the abovesaid version is a coloured one, only way to give strength to the case as otherwise the prosecution would not have been sustainable. At any rate, any of the drastic improvisation and embellishment in the new story put up in Annexure-A2 final report, the said version cannot be legally sustained by this Court. That apart, the girl has clearly admitted even in Annexure-A1 FIR that just before the incident, two other boy students were also sitting on a nearby seat. Going by the girl's version given by the learned Magistrate, she has been tutored by some of the police officials of the Pambadi Police Station to be the new version. That apart, the girl has clearly admitted even in Annexure-A1 FIR that just before the incident, two other boy students were also sitting on a nearby seat. Going by the girl's version given by the learned Magistrate, she has been tutored by some of the police officials of the Pambadi Police Station to be the new version. Even if it is assumed that such tutoring has taken place, it is also rather relevant to note that the very same police officials have also taken statements of the two other boy students, which are given on internal page Nos.14 & 15 of Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet (see page Nos.29 & 30 of the said paper book of this Crl.M.C). The relevant portion of the statement of one of such boy student, who is a witness is as follows: xxx xxx The other boy student has also given a statement as given on internal page No.15 of Annexure-A2 final report, which reads as follows: xxx xxx 9. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there was any tutoring of the minor victim girl, it is rather satisfactory to note that the police has at least the minimum fairness in having taken statements of the two boy students, whereby they had clearly stated that they were sitting next to the seat of the minor victim girl and that they have not seen any such bad incident, which is said to have been done by the petitioner on the minor victim girl, etc. Therefore, it is clear like the blue sky that the abovesaid allegations are factually wrong and incorrect. Therefore, in the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the inception and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings is nothing but a sheer abuse to the process of the court. 10. Before parting of this case, this Court would like to observe that in a case of sexual offence where an accused is falsely implicated, the real victim in such false cases is not the “alleged victim” of sexual violence, but the accused, who has been falsely implicated in the crime of sexual violence, which has been instituted falsely. This aspect of the matter has to be borne in mind by the Investigating Officers, Prosecutors as well as by the courts. 11. This aspect of the matter has to be borne in mind by the Investigating Officers, Prosecutors as well as by the courts. 11. In that view of the matter, it is only to be held and declare that the inception and continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings is illegal and improper and warrants interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure-A2 final report/charge sheet filed in Crime No.997/2018 of Pambadi Police Station, Kottayam, which has now led to the pendency of sessions case S.C.No.481/2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO cases, Kottayam initiated against the petitioner and all further proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed. The petitioner will produce the copies of this order before the Investigating Officer concerned and before the Special Sessions Court concerned, for necessary information. The office of the Advocate General will also forward a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer concerned. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C will stand disposed of.