Defence involving disputed questions of fact and age cannot be adjudicated at the stage of discharge.

The petitioner, a 77-year-old politician, sought the quashing of an order dated 13.02.2025, which rejected his discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that the petitioner lured her to Patna with the promise of a political ticket/employment, where he sexually abused her, recorded obscene videos, and blackmailed her.

The petitioner argued the case was maliciously filed in retaliation to an Economic Offence (EO) case he lodged against the complainant's associates for blackmail.

He further contended the complainant was a major at the time of the alleged incident and that the allegations lacked specific dates.

1. Whether a petitioner can be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. based on a defense of malicious prosecution and lack of specific dates/times in the complaint when prima facie allegations of sexual abuse exist

2. Whether the Court, at the stage of discharge, can conduct a "mini-trial" to determine the age of the victim or the veracity of the petitioner’s defense

The Court primarily applied Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), regarding discharge, emphasizing that the Court must only examine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

It relied on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates matriculation certificates as the primary document for age determination.

Furthermore, it applied the principles from *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)*, which limits the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to exceptional cases where no prima facie offense is made out.

The Court observed that the complainant’s matriculation mark sheet indicated she was approximately 17 years old at the start of the alleged occurrence, bringing the matter under the POCSO Act.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the lack of specific dates, noting that in sexual offenses involving minors, a lack of precision does not warrant discharge if the allegations are consistent and supported by inquiry witnesses.

The Court emphasized that a discharge proceeding cannot become a "mini-trial"; defenses such as previous enmity or retaliation must be adjudicated through a full trial where evidence can be tested.

The presence of sworn statements from the victim and inquiry witnesses, along with the alleged existence of a video clip, created "sufficient material on record" to proceed.

The direct answer to the issues is that discharge cannot be granted when prima facie evidence of sexual exploitation exists, as disputed questions regarding the victim's age and the petitioner's defense are matters for trial.

The Patna High Court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order dated 13.02.2025.