JUDGMENT

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

This revision, preferred under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C') is directed against the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in an application moved by the complainant-respondent no.2 (Paper No.38Kha) under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in Special Sessions Trial No.179 of 2019, State v. Naveen Kumar.

2. Facts necessary to resolve the controversy involved in this revision are that respondent no.2 gave a report on 29.08.2019 at P.S. Bhagwanpur against the accused Naveen Kumar. On the basis of said application, FIR No.0383 of 2019 was registered against the said accused Naveen Kumar. In the report, it was alleged that the informant's daughter was pursuing Class X education from C.M.D. Inter College, Churiyala, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Near about the first week of December, 2018, the informant's family noticed that her daughter remained scared and absent minded, and every day, she would refuse to go to school. However, the informant, after persuading her daughter, would send her to the school. On 10.12.2018, informant found a mobile phone kept in an almirah. When the informant asked about the said phone from her daughter, she replied that it was given to her by her Social Science Teacher namely Naveen Kumar after intimidating her. On further asking her, she disclosed that for last six months, accused Naveen Kumar was teasing, molesting and humiliating her. She further informed that the accused had threatened her that in case she would disclose this fact to anyone, he would send her father to the jail using his influential links. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when the accused Naveen Kumar was alone in the staffroom, other teachers namely Manoj and Pushpraj (revisionists herein) would coerce her daughter to go to the accused Naveen Kumar on one pretext or the other. With these averments, the FIR was lodged.

3. After registration of the FIR, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Third Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. On culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused Naveen Kumar for the offences under Section 354 IPC as well as under Section 9(f)/10 of the POCSO Act. The cognizance was taken by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar, and charges were framed against the accused.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced the victim as PW1 whereas her mother (informant) was examined as PW2.

5. During pendency of trial, an application (paper no.38-kha) was moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar, vide the impugned order dated 24.02.2021, has allowed the said application and summoned the present revisionists, namely, Manoj Kumar and Pushpraj Singh Chauhan to face the trial. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Court below, the present revision has been preferred before this Court.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length and also carefully perused the entire material available in the record of this case.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the revisionists are not named in the FIR; even there was no evidence which could be collected by the I.O. during investigation against them, and for this very reason, charge-sheet was submitted only against the accused Naveen Kumar; even the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., did not take the name of revisionists; it is a subsequently developed story; the revisionists have wrongly been summoned, as in order to summon a person u/s 319 Cr.P.C., there must be availability of cogent evidence against him, which, in the present case, is missing; the Trial Court thus fell into error in summoning the accused; and hence, the order under challenge deserves