JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Shanker Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Smt Jan Laxmi Tiwari Senanai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 21 of 2019: State of U.P. Versus Krishna Kumar and other under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 16 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the court of ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli and also for quashing of the charge-sheet No.101/2019 dated 05.02.2019 and quashing of summoning order dated 08.02.2019.

3. As per the prosecution version of the F.I.R., on 13.11.2018 at 08.40 A.M. the complainant went to drop off his daughter to her school and after the end of school hours, the complainant found out that his daughter did not attend the school that day. The complainant went home and checked his household trunk and found that the daughter had fled with Rs.20,000/- along with her. That complainant’s house is nearby to one neighbour Krishna Kumar Nayi’s house who lives with his son Avinash alias Shivam wife Shrimati, daughter Shivani and second son Abhishek as a family. The complainant states that Avinash alias Shivam was living in some city for purpose of earning his livlihood. Furthermore, as per the allegations levelled by complainant on 13.11.2018 at about 8.40 AM in the morning Shivani and Abhishek dropped off the victim from school to station where accused Avinash alias Shivam was already present, who manipulated the victim in running away with him. Also, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that Krishna Kumar Nayi was connected throughout on the phone and hence Krishna Kumar Nayi mother Shrimati sister Shivani and brother Abhishek all are involved in the said crime.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the entire prosecution story is false. No such incident took place and the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that before arguing the case on merits, he wants to draw attention of this Court on the charge-sheet dated 05.02.2019 submitted by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 16 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit, whereas he further submits that on the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and passed the summoning order on 08.02.2019. The cognizance was taken on the printed proforma by filling the sections of IPC, dates and number and in the said proforma the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason has summoned the applicants for facing trial. Copy of the cognizance order is also annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that by the order dated 08.02.2019 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma without assigning any reason is abuse of process of law and the same was without application of mind and was in a routine manner.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after submission of charge sheet and cognizance order on printed proforma, the applicants have been summoned mechanically by order dated 08.02.2019 and the court below while summoning the applicants has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicant. The court be