CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 26

th

September, 2025

Pronounced on: 12

th

January, 2026

+ CRL. M.C. 870/2021

SH. SURENDER KUMAR

R/o D-475, Pipe Line Road,

Behta-Hazipur,

Loni, Ghaziabad-201102 .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ayush Shrivastava,

Ms. Sneha P Mandal,

Advocates

versus

1. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Through SHO, P.S. Vijay Vihar,

Rohini, New Delhi.

2. SMT. “S”

W/o Sh. Nirmal Goyal,

R/o D-1/78, Sector-1,

Rohini, Avantika,

Delhi-110063 .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the

State with Insp. Manohar Lal

SHO PS Vijay Vihar with SI

Rajesh Kumar

Mr. Varun Mehlawat Advocate

for Respondent no.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 2

Petitioner/Surender Kumar to challenge the Order dated 17.04.2018 of

the learned Special Judge, POCSO, New Delhi in Case bearing

N.SC/741/2017, FIR No.654/2017, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Delhi,

holding that there was a prima facie case made out under Section 509 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and

consequently formal charges were framed on and 21.04.2018; and further

against the Order dated 20.07.2019 whereby the Charge was amended and

Section under Section 12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) read with Section 11

POCSO Act, was added against the Petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is the maternal grandfather (Nana) of the

victim. He is the father of Smt. “P”, who got married to Rakesh Kumar

according to Hindu rites and customs on 09.02.2007. From their wedlock,

two children were born on 22.02.2008 and 25.09.2012 respectively.

3. The brief background leading to the present FIR No.654/2017 are that

Smt. “P” filed a Complaint leading to registration of FIR No.22/2017 dated

02.02.2017 at Police Station Rohini, against her father-in-law, Shri Prayag

Chand. It was alleged by Smt. “P” that after marriage, Shri Prayag Chander,

her father-in-law, used to improperly look at her with sinister intentions. He

used to spike the soft drinks and thereafter, outraged her modesty and

committed rape on her. He also took naked photographs of her. He also

threatened Smt. “P” and asked her not to disclose the acts of crime to

anyone.

4. It is submitted by the Petitioner herein that as a counterblast to the

FIR No.22/2017, Respondent No.2/Complainant, Smt. “S” (sister-in-law of

Smt. “P”) decided to wreck vengeance on the maternal side of Smt. “P” by

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 3

resolving to train and tutor the grandchildren (children of Smt. “P”, Child

„A‟ and „M‟) against their maternal relatives by polluting their innocent and

impressionable minds against their own mother and maternal grandfather, in

order to initiate frivolous criminal proceedings.

5. Respondent No.2/Complainant, the paternal aunt (Bua) of the

grandchildren filed a Complaint dated 27.03.2017 (First Complaint) before

P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi, wherein she alleged that during the Diwali holidays

of 2015, the grandchildren had visited the Petitioner‟s house (maternal

grandfather/Nana) and during such visit, Mr. Amit (Maternal Uncle/Mama)

had purportedly sexually assaulted the Child „M‟. It is claimed that all the

allegations in the First Complaint were restricted to maternal uncle and there

was not a whisper of any allegation against the Petitioner, let alone any

other family member from the maternal side. The First Complaint dated

27.03.2017 resulted in registration of Zero FIR dated 29.03.2017 at P.S.

Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

6. Subsequent to the registration of the Zero FIR, Child „M‟ was

subjected to medical examination wherein it was stated that “the child has

not attained menarche yet”. Furthermore, a UPT Test of child „M‟ which

gave the result as “negative”. This Zero FIR registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar,

Rohini was transferred to Loni, Ghaziabad as maternal grandfather i.e. the

Petitioner resided there and the purported offence was claimed to have taken

place within the jurisdiction of Loni, Ghaziabad.

7. The Respondent No.2 then filed Second Complaint dated 30.05.2017

at P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi, wherein she reiterated the allegations of the

purported sexual assault committed by the Maternal Uncle against the Child

„M‟. Even in this Complaint, there were no allegations of sexual harassment

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 4

qua the Petitioner. On this Second Complaint, FIR No.654/2017 dated

30.05.2017 was registered at P.S. Vijay Vihar, Rohini, Delhi against Amit,

Sachin (brother of Smt. “P”/maternal uncles of Child “A” and “M”) and

Smt. “P” (mother of Child „A‟ and „M‟). The Petitioner (Nana of Child „A‟

and „M‟) was not arraigned as an accused in this FIR, as well.

8. After registration of FIR, the statement of the Child “A” was recorded

by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 02.05.2017 and the statement of

the Child “M” was recorded on 02.06.2017.

9. The statement of the Respondent No.2/Complainant and the children

was recorded on 31.05.2017, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

10. It is apparent from the statement of the grandchildren heavily tutored

by the paternal side of the family. Despite this, no allegation of any offence

of sexual assault was levelled against the Petitioner. The only supported

incriminatory part of the Child “M” statement against the Petitioner,

suggests that he purportedly „verbally abused‟ the Child “M” on certain

occasions.

11. Thereafter, on 18.08.2017, the Petitioner, the mother and the maternal

uncle were arrested by the Police and were eventually released on Bail vide

Order dated 06.10.2017.

12. On the basis of the allegations contained in the Statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C made by the Child “M”, the Petitioner and accused

Sachin were directed to be charged vide Order dated 17.04.2018, for the

offence under Section 509 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge under Section

75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as “JJ Act, 2000”) was framed against the Smt. “P”

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 5

and Charge under Section 12 POCSO Act against Amit. Pursuant thereto,

formal Charges were framed on 21.04.2018.

13. Thereafter, the evidence of the PW3/the Complainant was recorded

on 18.08.2018 and 15.12.2018.

14. Statement of PW2/Child “M” was recorded on 05.05.2018 and

19.05.2018. During the examination, the Child “M” was asked a specific

question as under:-

“Q. Aapke mama ke ghar main aur kon kon rehta tha?

А. Mеin, mummy, meri behen, nanа, nаni, do mama аur

mаmi rahti thi.

Q. Beta aapke nana, nani aur mama mami bhi kuchh

kahte the?

A. Meri naani aur mami kuchh nahi kahti thi aur nana

aur Sachin mama mujhe bahan ki gaali dete the aur

ch**** aur ulli kahte the.”

15. The proceedings prompted the Respondent No.2/Complainant to file

an Application before the learned Trial Court for framing of additional

Charge under Section 12 read with Section 11 POCSO Act against the

Petitioner (nana). The learned Special Judge on 20.07.2019 thus, framed an

additional Charge under the Section 12 POCSO against the Petitioner.

16. Aggrieved by the said framing of the Charges, the Petitioner has

filed the present Petition.

17. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2/Complainant had expressed a

grievance before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) stating that the

grandchildren are in need of care and protection.

18. In response to the same, the Chairperson of CWC after interacting

with the grandchildren, observed that the joint family is unhappy about Smt.

“P” not having a male child; Rakesh is influenced by his family members

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 6

who own a lot of property; Rakesh had also filed for a divorce; “P” keeps

travelling from Delhi to Ghaziabad, where her parental family lives and she

has filed a case for custody of her children in Rohini Courts.

19. It was further observed by CWC that the joint family is trying to

influence Rakesh to break up with his wife and Child „M‟ to go against her

mother. This case was “apparently of domestic unrest and property issue”.

Family counselling is urgently needed. Children are being looked after well

both by father and presently by the joint family. This is not a case of “care

and protection”.

20. This Order dated 25.04.2017 of CWC was challenged by the

Complainant in an Appeal under Section 27(10) JJ Act before the Deputy

Commissioner/Collector, (the Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority

in its Order dated 04.05.2018 observed that the grandchildren were merely

being used as pawn in the larger sinister game being played by the paternal

family against the maternal side.

21. The Petitioner thus, submits that the paternal side of the family has

levelled frivolous allegations against the maternal side, including the

Petitioner without any basis and merely out of vengeance. The criminal

proceedings have been undertaken as a counterblast to harass and intimidate

the maternal side of the family, by registration of the present FIR. Even on

a demurrer, it is evident that there is not even a whisper of an allegation

against the Petitioner, who is being unnecessarily being harassed in these

frivolous criminal proceedings.

22. The impugned Order is challenged on the ground that the

Complaints dated 29.03.2017 and 30.05.2017 were filed as a counterblast to

the FIR No.22/2017 registered against the Paternal Grandfather (Prayag

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 7

Chand) on the allegations of sexual assault and rape by the mother of the

Child. It has not been appreciated that the mother was threatened by the

paternal grandfather, who alleged to have taken lots of nude photographs of

her and threatened to release the same online.

23. It has further not been appreciated that the paternal side of the family

fearing prosecution under Section 376 IPC, planned to use the grandchildren

as pawns to settle personal scores and to wreck vengeance. Their anger was

exacerbated by the fact that the mother was unable to bear a male child,

which was confirmed from the observations of CWC as well as the

Appellate Authority.

24. Neither in the Complaint dated 29.03.2017 nor in the Complaint dated

30.05.2017 was there a whisper of any allegation against the Petitioner,

which was confined to allegations against the maternal uncle. In fact, at the

time of alleged purported acts of the maternal Uncle at the relevant time of

Diwali in the year 2015, the grandchildren were residing at the Petitioner‟s

house. Therefore, there is no basis for purporting „common intent‟ on the

Petitioner for the alleged criminal acts. The Order on Charge dated

17.04.2018 and 21.04.2018 framing Charged under Section 509/34 IPC is

patently erroneous.

25. The statement of the Child “M” under Section 164 Cr.P.C betrays

extensive tutoring. Her statement is highly unreliable given her immaturity

and lack of understanding at the relevant time. Child “M” was aged 9 years

and was a student of fourth standard. There is no substantiation of when the

said swear words were uttered, whether they were uttered in the presence of

someone else or they were uttered on some provocation; and whether the

Petitioner had directed them towards a third person or towards Child “M”. It

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 8

is claimed that it is completely unclear what the Petitioner has to defend

himself because there are absolutely no material particulars provided by the

prosecution. If these utterances were made only in the presence of Child

„M‟, then she would be the only witness who can testify to the veracity of

these claims.

26. Given the animosity harbored by the paternal side of the family

against the maternal side and considering that the grandchildren have been

tutored and poisoned by the paternal side of the family, the only inference is

that the statement of the Child „M‟ has been embellished and exaggerated at

the behest of the Complainant Smt. “S”.

27. It is further asserted that the only piece of evidence against the

Petitioner is the testimony of PW2, Child “M”, wherein she was asked, “Q.

Beta aapke nana, nani aur mama mai bhi kuchh kahte the?” to which PW2

answered “A. Meri naani aur mami kuchh nahi kahti thi aur nana aur

Sachin mama mujhe bahan ki gaali dete the or ch**** aur ulli kahte

the”. Merely based upon the same, the Trial Court erroneously framed the

additional charges under Section 12 POCSO Act.

28. It cannot be controverted that requirement of mens rea in the

purported act is of utmost relevance for attracting the offence punishable

under Section 12 POCSO Act. This pre-requisite is glaringly absent and

mere utterances of swear words without any underlying sexual intent does

not make an offence under Section 12 POCSO Act. It is claimed that the

initiation of criminal proceedings, are vexatious and mala fide.

29. Moreover, the legal test applicable in the cases of circumstantial

evidence, has not been applied. Reliance is placed on Shatrughna Baban

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 9

Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 901; Hanumat vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, (1953) SCR 1091.

30. It is further contended that mere suspicion is not an adequate ground

to proceed against an accused, as has been held by the Apex Court in Union

of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., 1979 AIR 366, Sheetla Sahai vs.

State of M.P., (2009) 8 SCC 618, Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal,

(1979) 3 SCC 4 and L. Krishna Reddy vs. State, (2014) 14 SCC 401.

Reliance is also placed on Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368;

Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667; Century Spinning &

Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282; State of

Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors., (1977) 2 SCC 699; Yogesh vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394 and Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135.

31. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Orders dated 17.04.2018,

21.04.2018 and 20.07.2019 in regard to framing of Charges/additional

Charge be set aside.

32. A Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein the

facts of the case have been narrated.

33. A Reply has also been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2/the

Complainant, wherein it is asserted that the present Petition is not

maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an efficacious alternate remedy is

available to the Petitioner under the provisions of Cr.P.C to challenge the

Order of framing of Charge.

34. It is submitted that the Petitioner has claimed that the present FIR

No.654/2017 is a counterblast to FIR No.22/2017 which had been filed by

Smt. “P” mother of the children against the Petitioner. Prior to registration

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 10

of FIR No.22/2017, father of the Complainant, had also made a Complaint

regarding the incident with Victim “M” on 13.12.2016 at Police Station

Vijay Nagar which was recorded vide DD No.60B dated 23.12.2016 through

NGP Prayas. The PCR Call was made by Raksh Kumar on 15.11.2015 and

13.09.2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present FIR is a

counterblast to FIR No.22/2017.

35. It is asserted that Petitioner has deliberately concealed material facts

to gain favourable Order from this Court. He has failed to mention that the

mother of the victims before registration of FIR No.22/2017, had filed the

Complaint on 12.01.2016 before Mahila Thana, Gaziabad and a D.V.

Petition on 23.09.2016 before Mahila Court, Rohini court. In both these

matters, there was no allegation of rape of outraging of modesty against the

father-in-law which proves that the allegations in FIR No.22/2017 against

the Petitioner were nothing but an afterthought, motivated and a counterblast

to the Complaint dated 26.10.2016, 01.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 01.12.2016

filed by the husband and Petitioner against the mother of the children.

Moreover, the I.O. had filed a Cancellation Report in FIR No.22/2017

against which a Protest Petition had been filed in the Court, which is

pending adjudication.

36. The Respondent No.2 has further submitted that the Child “M” had

specifically and clearly stated in her Statement under Section 161 and 164

Cr.P.C and also during the cross-examination in the Court that Petitioner

abused her in filthy language, which is sufficient to bring out a case against

the Petitioner under Section 509/34 and Section 12 read with Section 11

POCSO Act. For the offences under POCSO Act, the testimony of the

victim is sufficient and needs no corroboration to hold the Petitioner a

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 11

guilty. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that there are no

allegations and no direct evidence against him, is incorrect.

37. The Respondent No.2 has referred to the Order of CWC and learned

Appellate Authority dated 25.04.2017 and 04.05.2018 respectively, wherein

it was observed that there was a family dispute and that the grandchildren

were merely being used as pawns in the larger sinister game being played by

the paternal family against the maternal side. It is submitted that no such

observation had been made by CWC or its Appellate Authority. Even

otherwise, any observations made by CWC or its Appellate Authority

cannot be taken into consideration as allegations made in the statement of

victim „M‟ and „A‟ under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C are serious in

nature and required appreciation of evidence. The statements under Section

164 Cr.P.C by Child „M‟ and „A‟ were recorded by the learned MM after

satisfying that the victims were making statements voluntarily and without

any pressure or influence.

38. It is further asserted that as per Section 30 POCSO Act, the Trial

Court is bound to presume the existence of sexual intent in cases of

prosecution under Section 11 POCSO Act. The onus is upon the Petitioner

to rebut the presumption by proving that he had no such sexual intent.

Therefore, all the averments made in the Petition are denied.

39. It is submitted that the Petition is without any merit and is liable to

be dismissed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

40. The background of the case in which the present FIR got registered, is

that Petitioner‟s daughter, Smt. “P” got married to Rakesh Kumar on

09.02.2007 according to Hindu customs and rights. From the wedlock two

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 12

Children “M” and “A” aged 13 years and 9 years, respectively, were born.

Between 2007 to 2012 after the birth of two children, Sh. Rakesh, father of

the two children decided to stay with his own family along with the

children, to the exclusion of Smt. “P”.

41. On 02.02.2017, Smt. “P” registered FIR No.22/2017 against Sh.

Prayag Chander (paternal grandfather of her children) making allegations

of sexual assault and rape. Thereafter, Respondent No.2/Complainant, Smt.

“S” (Bua of her children) made a Complaint dated 27.03.2017 before Police

Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi levelling the allegations of assault.

42. Thereafter, she made another Complaint dated 25.04.2017, wherein

grievance was expressed before CWC under JJ Act stating that the

grandchildren were in need of care and protection. Zero FIR was registered

on 30.05.2017, but the matter was transferred to Loni, Ghaziabad as the

maternal grandfather/Petitioner‟s house was situated there.

43. The second Complaint was made by the Complainant/paternal aunt

(bua) on 30.05.2017 reiterating all her allegations which resulted in

registration of present FIR No.654/2017 dated 30.05.2017.

44. Charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 509 IPC

(Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and

subsequently Section 12 POCSO Act, was added.

45. The perusal of the detailed Complaint dated 30.05.2017 filed by the

Complainant, Ms. “S” (Bua), shows that there is not a single averment

against the Petitioner/Nana except that there is a reference to the house of

Nana where the alleged incident of assault, had taken place.

46. The statements of the two children “A” & “M” were recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C by the I.O. However, the perusal of the statement

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 13

shows that Child „A‟ did not make an iota of allegation made against the

Petitioner/Nana. It is only the Child “M” in the statement under Section

161 Cr.P.C. stated that “Nana and Sachin Mama also used to say abusive

remark B****”. Similar averments were reiterated by Child “M” in her

Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that “Nana aur Sachin Mama also

used to call me B****. Then I went along with my father to her house

situated at Sector 24”; “Nana-Nani have threatened Dada-Dadi that I

should not go for lodging complaint. That‟s all”.

47. The Child “M” as PW2, has also deposed that “Meri naani aur mami

kuchh nahi kahti thi aur nana aur Sachin mama mujhe bahan ki gaali dete

the or ch*** aur ulli kahte the”.

48. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it emerges that while the

Complainant, Smt. “S” and Child “A”, had not uttered a word about the

alleged criminal act of the Petitioner/Nana, but Child “M” has been

consistent in levelling the allegations as stated above against the Petitioner

nana, as well as, Sachin Mama.

49. At the stage of framing of Charge, it cannot be concluded that the

statement of Child “M”, which has remained consistent, is false or

contradictory to the statements of the Complainant or Child “A”. Each child

has described their own independent experience, and merely because Child

“A” or the Complainant, Smt. “S”, did not refer to any abuses allegedly

hurled by the Petitioner at Child “M”, such omission cannot cast a doubt on

or discredit the consistent statement of Child “M”.

50. Pertinently, the Charges were directed to be framed against the

Petitioner along with Amit Mama under Section 509 IPC vide Order dated

17.04.2018 and the formal Charges were framed on 21.04.2018. It is

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 14

pertinent to note that on the same allegations, Charge under Section 12 of

POCSO Act, was also framed against the Amit Mama. Subsequently, as

reflected in the Order dated 20.07.2019, the Complainant filed an

Application under Section 216 Cr.P.C for framing of additional Charge. The

Application was allowed and it was noted that insofar as, the offence under

Section 12 read with Section 11 of POCSO Act, is concerned, the Charges

under Section 509/34 has already been framed against the Petitioner,

Surender/Nana and additional Charge of Section 12 of POCSO Act, was

directed to be framed against him as well.

51. It is significant to note that there was no grievance of the Petitioner

against the first Order on Charge dated 17.04.2018 whereby he was charged

with the offence under Section 509 IPC. On the subsequent addition of

Section 12 read with Section 11 POCSO Act vide Order dated 20.07.2019,

the Petitioner has raised the grievance by way of the present Petition. It

reflects that the Petitioner had not challenged to the framing of Charge under

Section 509 IPC.

52. Herein, it is pertinent to note that the ingredients of Section 509 and

Section 12 POCSO Act are pari materia with Section 509 IPC except that

the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act, gets invoked when the victim

is a child.

53. It is also pertinent to refer to Section 42 of POCSO Act provides that

where an “act or omission” constitutes an offence detailed therein, as well as

Section 509 IPC, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for

the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such an offence, shall be

liable to punishment under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as

provides for punishment, which is greater in degree.

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 15

54. Section 42A further provides that the provisions of POCSO Act is in

addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the

time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this

Act, shall have the overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the

extent of the inconsistency.

55. What has thus, become evident from the record is that on the same

allegations while Charge under Section 509 IPC was framed against the

Petitioner, subsequently, on the same allegation, the Charge of Section 12

read with Section 11 POCSO Act, has also been directed to be framed,

which is in accordance with the provisions of POCSO Act. It is not as if

there were new allegations on which Section 12 has been added but it is on

the same allegations, Section 12 has made added to the Charge. It is not a

case where new charge on new allegations has been framed against the

Petitioner.

56. The Complainant has rightly contended that there was no objection to

the earlier framing of Charges vide Order dated 17.04.2018. In such

circumstances, the mere addition of Section 12 POCSO Act on the basis of

the same allegations, cannot constitute a valid ground for quashing of the

Charges. This position is further strengthened by the fact that, on identical

allegations, the co-accused Amit, was charged under Section 12 vide Order

dated 17.04.2018.

57. It has also been rightly contended that neither the Order dated

17.04.2018 nor the Charges framed on 21.04.2018 were ever challenged by

the Petitioner by way of a Revision. Section 12 POCSO Act has merely

been added on the same allegations, as mandated by law.

CRL.M.C. 870/2021 Page 16

58. There may have been a family litigation and there may have been

cross-complaints/FIRs but that at this stage, this cannot be a ground to quash

the FIR against the Petitioner when there is consistent allegation made by

Child “M” against him. It is a matter of trial and at this stage, it cannot be

said that the addition of Section 12 read with Section 11 POCSO Act, has

been made incorrectly.

59. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the present case does not warrant the exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction to quash the Charges framed against the Petitioner.

60. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed.

61. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly along with the pending

Application(s).

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2026/VA