ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’]has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in S.C.No.92 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘I.P.C.’]and Sections 12 read with 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri G.Rohith, learned counsel representing Sri P.Badrinath, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that the Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel would further submit the statement of the victim shows that she left the house on her own accord and there was no inducement of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences do not attract against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that by the date of alleged offence, the victim attained majority, as such, the ingredients of the alleged offences under POCSO Act also do not attract against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, as per the statement of the victim, she voluntarily left with the Petitioner and the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would submit that, since no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner, continuation of proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner.In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [ (2013) 7 SCC 263 ]. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and that the victim was a minor by the date of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit that this Court cannot determine the age of the victim at this stage and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be proved during trial. Learned counsel would further submit that this Court cannot determine the age of the victim at this stage and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be proved during trial. As such, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed at the threshold.Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.No.92 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. The present complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.3, who is the father of Respondent No.2, who is the victim girl, alleging that while Respondent No.2 was studying Intermediate, the Petitioner, who was working as Hindu Teacher, used to follow her on the premise that he loves her. When they complained about the same to the College Management, the Petitioner was sent out of the college. While so, on 25.06.2020 as Respondent No.2 was suffering from ill health, they went to Ravi Kumar Hospital and while Respondent No.3 was taking medicines, Respondent No.2 went to toilet, but has not returned. When they complained about the same to the College Management, the Petitioner was sent out of the college. While so, on 25.06.2020 as Respondent No.2 was suffering from ill health, they went to Ravi Kumar Hospital and while Respondent No.3 was taking medicines, Respondent No.2 went to toilet, but has not returned. On enquiry, Respondent No.3 came to know that she went along with a person on a bike. Having suspicion on the Petitioner, he lodged the complaint against him, which was registered as a case in Crime No.198 of 2020 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Section 12 read with 11 of POCSO Act. Police, after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the Petitioner/Accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC and Sections 12 read with 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act, 2012, which was numbered as S.C.No.92 of 2020. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said case against him. 9. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would show that, Respondent No.2/victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C clearly stated that, she had acquaintance with the Petitioner while she was studying 9 th class. When she was studying 1 st year Degree, they both loved each other. On coming to know about the same, she was house arrested by her father i.e., Respondent No.3. As her parents were searching matches for her marriage, In June, 2020, when her father took her to Ravi Hospital, Kavali, she and the Petitioner went to Thiruvathuru on a bike and took a room. As the father of the Petitioner phoned him and asked to surrender before the Police, on 03.07.2020 she along with the Petitioner surrendered before the Police. 10. A cursory look at the above statement would go to show that, she loved the Petitioner and on the date of alleged incident, she voluntarily went along with the Petitioner and there was no inducement on the part of the Petitioner. The above statement as well as the complaint given by Respondent No.3 do not show any ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. 11. Other than the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC, the Petitioner is also charged for the offences under Sections 12 r/w 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act. The above statement as well as the complaint given by Respondent No.3 do not show any ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. 11. Other than the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC, the Petitioner is also charged for the offences under Sections 12 r/w 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act. At this stage, for ready reference it is apposite to extract the said Sections of Law, which read 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. Explanation.—Any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. 12. Punishment for sexual harassment. —Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 3. Explanation.—Any question which involves "sexual intent" shall be a question of fact. 12. Punishment for sexual harassment. —Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 3. Penetrative sexual assault .—A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if— (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person. 4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault. — [(1)] Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 4 [ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. 5 [(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim." 12. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, clearly stated that, she and Accused loved each other and she herself left with him on the alleged date. Her statement does not reveal any physical relationship of sexual assault to attract the offences under above Sections of POCSO Act. The victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, clearly stated that, she and Accused loved each other and she herself left with him on the alleged date. Her statement does not reveal any physical relationship of sexual assault to attract the offences under above Sections of POCSO Act. It does not disclose any ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 3 and 11, which are punishable under Sections 12 and 4 respectively of the POCSO Act. 13. In Jarnail Singh’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court while making a reference to Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Rules, 2007 for determination of the age of the victim, held as follows: “ 22 . On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under Section 68(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : " 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age. (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3)of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub- rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." 14. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, by the date of alleged incident, the victim has attained majority, as such, on that score also the offences under POCSO Act do not attract against the Petitioner. A bare perusal of the SSC Certificate of the victim would clearly show that her date of birth is 05.05.2002. As per the procedure contemplated under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the SSC Certificate is the document which has to be taken into consideration for determination of the age of the child. As such, as per the date of birth mentioned in the SSC Certificate of the victim, she was a major by the date of the alleged incident and no iota of material has been placed to prove contra. As such, it can be held that the victim was a major by the date of incident. 15. As such, as per the date of birth mentioned in the SSC Certificate of the victim, she was a major by the date of the alleged incident and no iota of material has been placed to prove contra. As such, it can be held that the victim was a major by the date of incident. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgment referred to supra this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the alleged offences. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused and as such, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.No.92 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences under the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nellore for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC and Sections 12 read with 11 and Section 4 read with 3 of POCSO Act, 2012. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.