JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner -Shri Tania Lida, has challenged the Supplementary Charge-Sheet No.65 (b)/20, dated 25.08.2021, filed in Daprijo P.S. Case No. 31/17, under Section 4 (1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and also the entire case proceeding of BSR/POCSO-09/2021, under Section 4 (1) of POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Basar. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner, namely Shri Tania Lida was charge-sheeted in Daporijo P.S. Case No. 31/17 under Section 306/34 IPC. Thereafter, BSR/SESS-05/2021 has been registered and the learned court below at the time of consideration of charge on 01.07.2021 has discharged the petitioner and another co-accused from the offences under Section 306/34 IPC. While passing the discharge order, dated 01.07.2021, the learned Court below has directed the I.O. to conduct further investigation to ascertain the age of the deceased. The said order has also been impugned in Criminal Petition No. 32/2021 pending before this Court by the petitioner. While the said petition was pending for disposal, the I.O. has completed the investigation and submitted Supplementary Charge-Sheet under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and upon the said supplementary Charge-Sheet, the learned Court below has taken cognizance and initiated the proceeding against the petitioner, despite, there being no materials/evidence, whatsoever. Therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition to quash the supplementary Charge-Sheet and subsequent proceeding pending before the learned Addl. Therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition to quash the supplementary Charge-Sheet and subsequent proceeding pending before the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, on the following grounds:- (i) that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact that even assuming the age of the deceased to be of 16 years (as recorded in the Post Mortem Report) in the absence of any materials of sexual assault in any form as defined under POCSO Act, 2012, the order for further investigation with respect to the age of deceased would be futile and abuse of process of the law; (ii) the learned court below has failed to appreciate the law that after discharging the accused for the charges laid in the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no direction or order for further investigation can be passed in view of the judgment as held in the case of Bikash Ranjan Rout-vs-NCT of Delhi, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 542 that the impugned order, dated 01.07.2021 is an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, it is contended to set it aside.” 4. Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the co-accused has been discharged by the learned Court below from the charges under Section 306/34 IPC vide order, dated 01.07.2021 and vide the said order, the learned Court below has also directed the I.O. to conduct further investigation and to ascertain the age of the deceased and thereafter, the I.O. has ascertain her age and found her age below the age of 18 years and thereafter, submitted the Charge-Sheet under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Taking this Court through the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the statement of the witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted as gospel truth, yet, the same fails to reveal any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act and as such, submission of supplementary Charge-Sheet is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in 1992 AIR 604. And therefore, Mr. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in 1992 AIR 604. And therefore, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended to allow the petition. Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after discharging the accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court below got no power to direct for further investigation in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra). Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. But, having carefully gone through the said case law, i.e. Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) I find that the same cannot come into aid of the petitioner at this stage as after investigation the I.O. has already laid supplementary charge sheet, either rightly or wrongly. 5. Per contra Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP submits that though in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. there is no material to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, yet, there is clear allegation of sexual assault in the FIR and there is admission on the part of on the part of the accused about the same. Mr. Bori further submits that during the investigation the I.O. had seized one Diary of the victim where some materials are there to suggest sexual assault and that this Court is not entitled to assess the same whether the same are sufficient to establish the offence or not as it is the business of the Trial Court only. Mr. Bori, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition and to grant the prosecution side a chance, to establish its case before the learned Court below. 6. Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petitioner and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case law referred by Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner and I find substance in the submission of Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner as in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. no one has whispered any word subjecting the victim to sexual assault by the petitioner. However, in view of submission of Mr. Bori, the learned Addl. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner and I find substance in the submission of Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner as in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. no one has whispered any word subjecting the victim to sexual assault by the petitioner. However, in view of submission of Mr. Bori, the learned Addl. PP, who, and his reference to the Diary of the victim seized by the Police, which allegedly contains some materials to suggest sexual assault activities between the deceased and the petitioner, the question to be considered by this Court is can it assess the materials collected by the I.O. during the investigation to find out as to whether there are sufficient materials to submit the supplementary Charge-Sheet and to frame charge against the accused or not. The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, that this court while dealing with a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot make a roving enquiry as to the sufficiency of the materials. Besides, the prosecution side has disputed the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner here. It is well settled that disputed question of facts cannot be looked into in petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Another aspect, that should not lost sight of is that the I.O. has laid the Supplementary Charge-Sheet under Section 4 (1) of the POCSO Act, which is a special statute. While dealing with the quashing of non-compoundable offences, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh-vs-Laxmi Narayan and Others; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 15.3 held that the power to quash criminal proceeding for non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the offences under the Special Statute. It is also stated that such power is not to be exercised in those prosecution which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. which have a serious impact in the society. 8. In view of the above and also in view of the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the supplementary charge-sheet. which have a serious impact in the society. 8. In view of the above and also in view of the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the supplementary charge-sheet. As submitted by Mr. Bori, learned Addl. P.P. there are some materials against him besides the allegation in the FIR and whether the same will be sufficient or not to put the petitioner to trial has to be decided by the learned court below at the time of framing charge. This court is not entitled to make roving enquiry about the same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition. 9. However, in view of the submission advanced by the learned Advocates at the Bar, it is provided that while considering framing of charge against the petitioner, the learned Court below shall consider the sufficiency of the materials against the petitioner for putting him to trial under Section 4 of the POCSO Act or not. In terms of the above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.