Quashing of POCSO charges is warranted where the record lacks evidence of sexual intent or physical contact.

The incident occurred on December 10, 2025, where two unknown persons allegedly abducted the complainant's minor niece and son on a motorcycle

An F.I.R. was initially registered under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023. During investigation, the prosecution added charges under Sections 140(1), 140(3), 127(4), 238 r/w 62 of the B.N.S., Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, and Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

On March 11, 2026, the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Barwah, framed charges under these sections

The applicant challenged the framing of charge No. 7 pertaining to the POCSO Act via this criminal revision petition

Whether the framing of charge No. 7 under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the applicant was legally sustainable in the absence of foundational material in the case diary or victim's statement.

Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which defines sexual assault as physical contact with sexual intent without penetration, and Section 8, which provides the punishment for such assault

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, 1973 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023), establishing that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and intended to correct jurisdictional errors, patent illegalities, or manifest errors of record

framing of charge requires a "grave suspicion" based on the material on record

The Court examined the F.I.R., the case diary, and specifically the statement of the child victim

It observed that Section 7 of the POCSO Act necessitates "physical contact with sexual intent," yet the prosecution record was completely bereft of any allegations or evidence to substantiate such an intent or act

The Court found that there was no foundational material to fulfill the essential ingredients of Sections 7 or 8 of the POCSO Act

the trial court's decision to frame charge No. 7 lacked a factual basis and constituted a patent illegality and perversity that would lead to a gross miscarriage of justice if left undisturbed

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the impugned order dated March 11, 2026. However, the remaining charges under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act remain intact, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial regarding those specific charges