ORDER : RAVI V.HOSMANI, J. Challenging order dated 01.09.2024 rejecting application for discharge filed by Petitioner/ sole accused in Spl.C.No.497/2025, passed by Addl. District And Sessions Judge FTSC-1, Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru, in Cr.no.252/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 78, 115 (2), 351 (2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 (' BNS for short) and Sections 11 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ( 'POCSO' , for short), this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Abhishek A, learned counsel for appearing for Sri Praveen Kumar HK, advocate for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution in brief was that, on 28.04.2023, a complaint was filed by respondent no.2, stating that she was residing with her parents and while studying II Year PUC, she was acquainted with accused. And since one year accused was following and approaching her near college and insisting on reciprocating his love for her by sending messages through her classmates, over phone etc. and subjecting her to mental harassment. He used to follow her everyday and sexually harass her. He also used to visit her home in absence of her parents insisting her to love him. On 28.04.2025 at about 3:00 p.m. accused came along with his mother and began abusing her in filthy words. They threw stones on door of her house and also attempted to assault her. Everyday while she was going and coming back from college, he used to force her to love him by touching her. Therefore, she sought for taking appropriate action against accused and facilitate to complete her studies. She also alleged that accused had assaulted her brother near Mayur Bakery, Whitefield. 3. It was submitted, same was registered as Cr.no.252/2025 by Whitefield P.S. and accused was arrested on same day at 11.50 pm. After investigation, charge-sheet dated 15.06.2025 was filed against accused for offences punishable under Sections 78, 115 (2), 351 (2) and 352 of 'BNS' and Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO in Spl.C.no.497/2025. 4. It was submitted, entire contents of complaint and facts and circumstances of case were false and vindictive. Accused had not committed offences as alleged. Despite same, only at instance of complainant and her family members, accused was being subjected to prosecution. Therefore, accused had filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.PC. But, Special Court rejected application without proper consideration leading to this petition. 5. Accused had not committed offences as alleged. Despite same, only at instance of complainant and her family members, accused was being subjected to prosecution. Therefore, accused had filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.PC. But, Special Court rejected application without proper consideration leading to this petition. 5. It was firstly submitted, bare perusal of complaint would reveal that it was written by three different persons without any explanation. It was submitted, there were grave inconsistencies and improvements between contents of complaint and statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC., thereby indicating falsity of allegations. In complaint, complainant had stated that incident occurred around 7:30 p.m. near Mayur Bakery, whereas, in her statement recorded by Investigating Officer, she stated assault was at 8:10 p.m., near her father's Watch Repair Shop on Whitefield Main road, Loyal City Hyper Market. 6. It was submitted, there was no explanation for Investigating Officer ('IO' for short) recording further statement of complainant on same day on which her statement was recorded. It was submitted, employment of provisions of POCSO was to implicate accused of serious charges. It was submitted, overall view of above would indicate falsity of allegations and abuse of process of law, entitling accused for discharge. 7. It was submitted though charge sheet was filed citing 20 witnesses, same would not establish even prima facie case. Hence, rejection of application was unsustainable and sought for interference. 8. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 , for proposition that judge is not mere post office to frame charge at behest of prosecution that has to exercise judicial mind to facts of case in order to determine whether case for trial is made out by prosecution, without having to weigh evidence and evaluating probabilities, but merely to sift through material to find out whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused. 9. It was submitted that in Rajkumar @ Raju & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023:AHC:243037, High Court of Allahabad had taken note of inconsistencies in statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, and remanded matter back to trial Court for fresh consideration of application for discharge observing that said right was a valuable right of accused. 10. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023:AHC:243037, High Court of Allahabad had taken note of inconsistencies in statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, and remanded matter back to trial Court for fresh consideration of application for discharge observing that said right was a valuable right of accused. 10. Reliance was placed on decisions of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Ravi Kumar v. State of HP reported in 2010 SCC OnLine HP 1515 and High Court of Delhi in State GNCT of Delhi v. Baljeet Singh @ Shankey reported in 2019 SCC OnLine DEL 9109 and High Court of Madras in N Chandramohan v. The State by Inspector of Police & Ors. reported in 2019 2 LW (Cri) 460, for proposition that invocation of Section 11 of POCSO in absence of allegation of sexual intent would be ground for discharge. 11. Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 , it was submitted, if prosecution material disclosed case of grave suspicion, application for discharge could be considered. 12. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP appearing for respondent no.1 opposed petition. It was submitted offences alleged against accused were serious carrying severe sentences. It was submitted, offences alleged were stalking, causing voluntary hurt, insult with intention to provoke breach of peace and sexual harassment. It was submitted, facts disclosed by prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. would substantiate necessary ingredients for offences charged. Therefore, there was prima facie material to proceed with prosecution. Consequently, rejection of application for discharge by Special Court was fully justified and no interference was warranted. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 14. This revision petition is by accused challenging order of rejection of application for discharge. In application, it is contended that accused was innocent and falsely implicated on personal vengeance. That, contents of complaint do not contain ingredients to constitute offence charged. It was further submitted prosecution case suffered from lack of complete chain link of events with regard to offences alleged. That, accused and prosecutrix were in love since a year, that it was prosecutrix, who had proposed her love to accused and when he refused, blackmailed him into acceptance. It was further submitted prosecution case suffered from lack of complete chain link of events with regard to offences alleged. That, accused and prosecutrix were in love since a year, that it was prosecutrix, who had proposed her love to accused and when he refused, blackmailed him into acceptance. And when her family members found out, they had threatened accused and later implicated him in false case without there being even prima facie material against him, by misusing penal provisions. 15. It was submitted, perusal of charge-sheet and documents filed along with same would reveal absence of prima facie material apart from glaring inconsistencies and improvement in version of prosecutrix. When as per statement of prosecutrix, incidents occurred in public, failure to examine anyone from public and instead basing entire prosecution case on statements of prosecutrix and her family members would also substantiate abuse of process of law. 16. It was submitted, in her statement recorded by IO on 28.04.2025, prosecutrix had stated that she was friendly with accused, had attended his birthday party and other functions, that they had visited Phoenix Mall etc., when accused had taken photographs of being together and threatened to circulate them if she refused his love. But, in her further statement recorded on same day, which was also date on which FIR was registered, she gave several contradictory statements. Firstly, about accused assaulted her near Mayura Bakery and later, stating place of assault to be near her father’s watch repair shop, in Loyal City Hypermarket, which was at distance of 500 mtrs. from Mayura Bakery. It was further submitted, CWs.1 to 4 were family member and CW.5 was working in her father’s shop. Thus, prosecution was depending on statements of interested and untrustworthy witnesses. Further, Wound Certificate dated 29.04.2025 of CW.4 showing time of incident as 8:00 p.m., on 28.04.2025, but statement of CW.4 was recorded on 29.04.2025 at 3:00 p.m., wherein he stated that he was assaulted on 28.04.2025 at 7:30 p.m. This would indicate that statement of CW.4 as untrustworthy. 17. While passing impugned order, trial Court observed, at time of considering application for discharge, it has to note only documents produced along with charge-sheet and merely on ground that there are contradictions between complaint averments and statement of victim, cannot be a ground to discharge accused. 1 8. 17. While passing impugned order, trial Court observed, at time of considering application for discharge, it has to note only documents produced along with charge-sheet and merely on ground that there are contradictions between complaint averments and statement of victim, cannot be a ground to discharge accused. 1 8. It observed, since there were allegation of offences under POCSO, it would first require to ascertain whether prosecutrix is a minor and if so, whether she sustained forcible sexual assault or harassment, which could only be looked into in trial. It observed, main ground urged by accused was relationship with prosecutrix was consensual. But, in case of offences under POCSO, there could not be valid consent. On above observations, it concluded that matter required trial and rejected application. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. J Doraiswamy & Ors. reported 2019 (2) SCC 149, held, while examining application for discharge, Courts cannot act as Appellate Court to take note of inconsistencies in statements of witnesses. 20. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors. reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 , it is held: "29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence . At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage 31.1. Under Section 227 of the Code, the trial court is required to discharge the accused if it “considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”. However, discharge under Section 239 can be ordered when “the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless”. The power to discharge is exercisable under Section 245(1) when, “the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction”. (Emphasis supplied) 21. From above, it emerges that if Court comes to conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused, matter has to stand trial. And only when Court based on prosecution material, comes to conclusion that no case against accused is made out, it can consider application for discharge. 22. Contentions urged in support of application for discharge are abuse of process to implicate accused for serious offences in vengeance. Perusal of prosecution material, reveals that not only in complaint, but also in their statements recorded during investigation, complainant has mentioned age of prosecutrix as 16 years and alleged that accused was stalking her and indulged in sexual harassment by pressurizing her to accept his proposal of love and touching her body. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, prosecutrix has corroborated complaint allegations. Above, would constitute necessary ingredients for offences alleged under POCSO. 23. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, prosecutrix has corroborated complaint allegations. Above, would constitute necessary ingredients for offences alleged under POCSO. 23. Even if as contended there are inconsistencies about time and place of assault of her brother, as held in J Doraiswamy ’s case (supra), same cannot be appreciated at time of considering application for discharge. 24. Decisions relied upon by accused, though are unexceptionable for propositions of law laid down therein, would not come to aid of accused herein in above facts and circumstances. 25. Hence, no ground to interfere. Revision petition is dismissed.