Rajeev Misra, J.

1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused applicants challenging the summoning order dated 12.4.2018, the consequential order dated 11.5.2018 (whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants) passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Sessions Trial No. 23/2016 State Vs. Ram Dayal and Others, under Section 376 D, 506 IPC, Section 5(6) 6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

2. Mr. B.K. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dhiraj Srivastava and Mr. Anjani Kumar Advocates for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Piyush Tripathi Advocate, for the complainant opposite party No.2 have been heard at length and in detail.

3. The facts necessary for the present adjudication portray that an incident is alleged to have occurred on 20.12.2014 in which Manju Kumari the daughter of the complainant opposite party No.2 aged about 13 years is alleged to have been gang raped by the applicants. According to the opposite party No.2 inspite of the best efforts made by him, the F.I.R. in respect of the said incident was not registered. Consequently, the opposite party No.2 after the expiry of 17 days from the date of the alleged incident, filed an application dated 7.1.2015, in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate concerned. The said application came to be allowed on 11.12.2014. As a result of the aforesaid, an FIR dated 31.12.2014 came to be registered at Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra as Case Crime No. 228 of 2014, under Section 376 (d) IPC, Section 5(6), 6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act.

4. The Investigating Officer commenced the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime no. in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was got medically examined on 7.1.2015 i.e. after 17 days of the alleged incident by a lady doctor namely, Dr. Geeta Jaiswal. She submitted the medical report dated 7.1.2015. This was followed by a report of the radiologist who submitted the radiological report dated 7.1.2015. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 12.1.2015. The pathological report dated 15.1.2015 was prepared in respect of the pathological test undertaken regarding the prosecutrix. On the basis of the radiological report as well as the pathological report pertaining to the prosecutrix the lady doctor namely Dr. Geeta Jaiswal who had medically examined the prosecutrix on 7.1.2015 submitted the supplementary medical report dated 10.2.2015.

5. While the aforesaid exercise was being carried out the Investigating Officer who was no one else but a Deputy Superintendent of Police was proceeding with the Investigating of the above mentioned case crime no. He recorded the statements of Sawaroo, Panchbahadur, Nandu Prajapati, Shiv Kumar and Dr. Geeta Jaiswal under section 161 Cr.P.C, and also visited the place of occurrence.

6. On the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of Investigation i.e. the medical reports referred to above as well as the statement of the witnesses he came to the conclusion that the incident as alleged by the complainant opposite party no. 2 does not appear to have occurred. Accordingly, in line with the aforesaid, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report dated 25.3.2015.

7. After the expiry of a period of more than three years from the date of submission of the final report dated 25.3.2015, opposite party No.2 father of the prosecutrix filed a protest petition dated 3.4.2018 against the aforesaid final report. The same was registered as Misc Application No. 23116 of 2018. The court concerned thereafter rejected the final report dated 25.3.2015 and proceeded with the case as a complaint case. Accordingly, the Court below, dire