JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal and learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri L. D. Rajbhar learned A.G.A. for the state.

2. The present criminal revision purported to be under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for challenging the order dated 8.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Bareilly, in Special Case No. 09 of 2020 (State Vs. Vedram), Case Crime No. 168 of 2019 under sections 363 366, 370-A, 376 and 120-B IPC and section 16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Cantt. District Bareilly, where by the applicants have been summoned in exercise of power as conferred under section 319 Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 being mother of the victim on 21.05.2019 being FIR no. 168 u/s 363, 366 of IPC against one Vedram alleging that when the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the mother of the victim while returning after purchasing vegetables on 11.12.2017 at 6:00 p.m. then she found that the victim being Ms. Khushboo who is aged about 14 years was missing from the house. Therefore, after constant search was being made to trace her