JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 17.07.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.432 of 2025, arising out of Special POCSO Case No.11 of 2025, registered on the basis of Daltonganj Town Mahila P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, whereby, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Palamu at Daltonganj has been pleased to reject the prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(d)(m), 74, 75, 126(2), 127(2), 238, 239, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 6, 10, 12, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, pending in that Court. 3. The case has been registered alleging therein that the informant/victim is one of the inmates of Vikash International Balika Grih, Panchwati Nagar and has been residing there since about one and half years. The co-accused Priyanka Kumari is the counsellor of the Institution who takes care of the inmates. It was further alleged that the said Priyanka Kumari impressed the informant and other girls of Balika Grih that the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the said Balika Grih, is a very nice person and directed them to take care of him. It was also alleged that Priyanka Kumari, on that pretext, used to send the victim to the house of the petitioner to do his household works. Apart from household work, she also used to change diaper of his wife. It was further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was bad towards her. On the next day of last Deepawali festival, when all the family members were sleeping, the petitioner came and caught her tightly and pressed her chest and opened her pant and committed rape upon her. She tried to raise alarm, but he pressed her mouth. On the next day, she returned to Balika Grih and narrated the said incident to co-accused Priyanka Kumari, then she threatened her that if this incident is disclosed to anyone, she would not be allowed to go her own home and again she forcefully sent her to the house of the petitioner. On the next day, she returned to Balika Grih and narrated the said incident to co-accused Priyanka Kumari, then she threatened her that if this incident is disclosed to anyone, she would not be allowed to go her own home and again she forcefully sent her to the house of the petitioner. It was also alleged that in the night of Chhath festival, when she was sleeping on the ground floor of the house, the petitioner again forcefully committed rape upon her. The informant somehow returned to Balika Grih where other inmates also told her that the petitioner also molested them. One another inmate disclosed that Priyanka Kumari had demanded money to send her to her home and also told her that she has to sleep with ‘Sir’ before going to home. Priyanka Kumari had also sent her photo to ‘D” Sir of CWC and told the inmates girls that they will have to sleep with ‘Sir’ if they want to get release from Balika Grih. It was further alleged that both the petitioner and co-accused used to torture the inmates and the petitioner sexually exploited them. On the basis of the above fardbeyan, Daltonganj Town Mahila P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 has been registered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said case has been investigated and during investigation, the I.O. has recorded statements of altogether 10 witnesses and along with them 2 Doctors and herself cited as chargesheet witness while filing the final form on 28.01.2025 against the petitioner and co-accused Priyanka Kumari and the investigation kept pending against 7 others. He further submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner pursuant to the chargesheet dated 28.01.2025. He then submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the informant/victim. He next submits that in a planned manner to malign the reputation of the petitioner in the society, the case has been registered. He submits that the petitioner is aged about 72 years. He also submits that the investigation has been conducted in a mechanical manner and not in proper direction. He then submits that vital proof regarding age of the victim has not been decided. He submits that in view of that, the learned Court has erred in dismissing the discharge petition. He submits that the petitioner is aged about 72 years. He also submits that the investigation has been conducted in a mechanical manner and not in proper direction. He then submits that vital proof regarding age of the victim has not been decided. He submits that in view of that, the learned Court has erred in dismissing the discharge petition. He also submits that it has come in paras 113 and 118 of the case diary about the documents of the victim, which has not been considered by the learned Court in right direction and in view of that, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the case has already been investigated and chargesheet has been submitted and pursuant to that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that by cogent reason the impugned order has been passed and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He also submits that the learned Court has also given finding with regard to paras 113 and 118 of the case diary, which is at internal page 6 of the impugned order and in view of that, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the allegation is made that the co-accused Priyanka Kumari used to send the victim to the house of the petitioner to do his household works. The allegation of molestation is made on the next day of Deepawali while other family members were sleeping. The said allegation has been investigated by the police and independent witnesses have supported the case and, thereafter, chargesheet has been submitted. 7. The learned trial court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as paras 113 and 118 of the case diary is concerned and found that those are the documents related to age of the victim of Class V and II respectively and has also found that those documents do not come under the documents mentioned in the provision of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and all aspects have been investigated by the police and, thereafter, chargesheet has been submitted. The learned trial court has also found that there is sufficient material against the petitioner in the case to frame the charge and in view of that, the learned Court has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 8. It is well-settled that even if prima facie case is there and chance of conviction is further there, discharge petition cannot be allowed. For deciding the discharge petition, the learned Court is not required to make a roaming inquiry to come to a conclusion that whether the case is made out or not. Further, if prima facie materials are there, the learned Court is competent to frame the charge. 9. In the case in hand, the police have already investigated the case and submitted chargesheet and the petitioner is charged under Sections 64(2)(d)(m), 74, 75, 126(2), 127(2), 238, 239, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 6, 10, 12, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act. 10. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 11. Pending I.A., if any, is also dismissed.