Minor discrepancies between victim statements cannot justify discharge where prima facie sexual intent is alleged.

Respondent No. 2, the mother of the minor victim, lodged a complaint alleging that on 16 August 2025 at approximately 4:30 a.m., the petitioner entered the residential premises, approached the victim’s window, and made indecent gestures towards her. The victim raised an alarm, following which the petitioner allegedly escaped and entered a watchman’s room.

Crime No. 1069 of 2025 was registered at Meerpet Police Station for offences under Sections 329(4) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

After recording the statements of LWs.1 to 11, the Investigating Officer filed the final report on 24 September 2025. The trial Court took cognizance and framed charges.

The petitioner thereafter sought discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), principally contending that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS did not allege any sexual act or sexual intent and that the statements contained material discrepancies. The trial Court dismissed the discharge application on 04 July 2026, leading to the present petition.

Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 329(4) and 79 of the BNS and Sections 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings?

Whether inconsistencies between the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS could be considered at the stage of discharge to terminate the proceedings?

Whether the High Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the trial Court’s order refusing discharge?

The Court applied Section 250 of the BNSS governing discharge and Section 528 of the BNSS concerning the High Court’s inherent powers.

It considered Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, under which sexual harassment requires an act involving sexual intent; the Explanation to Section 11 expressly treats sexual intent as a question of fact.

At the stage of framing of charges or discharge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or a mini-trial; it must determine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and create a prima facie or grave suspicion against the accused.

Relying on Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781, and State v. Ashok Kumar Verma, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1948, the Court held that discrepancies or omissions between statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC—or their corresponding BNSS provisions—are ordinarily matters for trial and, by themselves, do not justify discharge.

The decisions in State v. Anil @ Kallu @ Thakur, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10903, and MRP (Identity Withheld) v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1404, were distinguished as cases where the record contained no prima facie indication of sexual intent.

The Court found that the complaint and the statements of the victim and supporting witnesses specifically alleged that the petitioner entered the premises at an early hour, approached the victim’s window, and made indecent gestures towards her.

These allegations, if accepted at face value, were sufficient at the preliminary stage to raise a prima facie case concerning the alleged offences, including the question of sexual intent under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, which the statute treats as a factual matter to be determined at trial.

The petitioner’s reliance on the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, which referred principally to knocking on the window and calling her, raised evidentiary inconsistencies rather than demonstrating that the prosecution case was legally impossible.

The Court held that assessing the credibility of the witnesses and reconciling the variations between their statements would require a full-fledged trial and could not be undertaken in discharge proceedings.

Since the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case and the trial Court had given cogent reasons for refusing discharge, the precedents relied upon by the petitioner were held inapplicable.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial Court’s order dated 04 July 2026, the Court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and dismissed Criminal Petition No. 12587 of 2026.

All pending miscellaneous applications were closed.