JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNS S , 2023, for setting aside the order dated 03.7.2025 passed in M.C.A. Case No.355 of 2025 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned court of Special Judge Exclusive (POCSO) Act, Jamshedpur which was registered in connection with Mango (Ulidih) P.S Case No.306 of 2024, re-registered as Spl. POCSO Case No.1/ 2025 under sections 126(2), 127(2), 74, 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jamshedpur. 3. The FIR has been registered alleging therein that daughter of the informant who is aged about 11 years was very quiet since few days. Upon enquiry, it was revealed by the victim that the petitioner who was residing on 6 th floor of the same building tried to outrage the modesty of the victim on 3.11.2024. The victim has informed that on 3.11.2024 when she went for cycling the petitioner was grazing upon her with a preying eye. Later on when the victim climbed the lift to go to her flat, the petitioner also entered in the lift and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. Later on the petitioner has threatened the victim to stay silent on the incident or else there will be dire consequences. The victim girl thereby stayed silent for four days but upon enquiry made by her mother she narrated the entire incident to her mother. Her mother thereafter confronted to petitioner and raised this issue with his parents and informed the society members and pursuant thereto, FIR was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation police has submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and thereafter the learned Special Judge took cognizance over the matter. He further submits that after the cognizance was taken, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge which has been rejected by the learned court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation police has submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and thereafter the learned Special Judge took cognizance over the matter. He further submits that after the cognizance was taken, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge which has been rejected by the learned court. The only point has been argued before this Court that unsoundness of mind of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the learned court while deciding the discharge petition and has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition. He then submits that in light of Section 367 and 369 of BNSS , 2023, the petitioner is required to be discharged. He also submits that in view of the reasons made under Section 367 of BNSS , 2023, the learned Magistrate was required to make enquiry with regard to the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner however, which has not been done and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the petitioner, a petition has been filed for discharge. She further submits that no cogent reason has been given before the learned court to prove about the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner. She also submits that in light of section 367 of BNSS , 2023, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pray before the learned court to make an enquiry with regard to unsoundness of mind of the petitioner, however, the petitioner straightway has filed the discharge petition saying that the petitioner is of unsound mind and on this ground she submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. The petitioner is charged under Section 12 6 (2), 127(2), 74, 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. 6. The petitioner is charged under Section 12 6 (2), 127(2), 74, 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. It has come in the impugned order that in paragraph nos.2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the case diary the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case and allegations are made against the petitioner and straightway the petitioner has filed the discharge petition in which the grounds have been taken of unsoundness of mind of the petitioner, however, no prayer has been made before the learned court to make enquiry with regard to said contention and apart from that, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the petitioner is having such state of mind. Prima facie, material has to be produced before the learned court to make an enquiry with regard to such contention in light of Section 367 of BNS S , 2023 which has not been done by the petitioner and the petitioner is facing charge under Sections 12 6 (2), 127(2), 74, 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS , 2023 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. The exposition on the scope of the provisions relating to the accused person of unsound mind are not of much debate. However, nothing of the aforesaid principles could apply to the present case, for there had been no materials on record and no other reason appeared during his trial for which the trial court would have been obliged to take recourse of the procedure contemplated by Sections 367 and 369 of BNS S , 2023. 7. In view of above reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order in view of the fact that no material was brought before the learned court to invoke section 367 of the BNSS , 2023 and straightway the discharge petition was filed before the learned court. So far other aspect is concerned, the learned court has given cogent finding and has rightly held that a roving enquiry is not required and prima facie case is made out against the accused person. The charge against the petitioner is very serious, however, that can be proved in the trial and there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed.