MANI PUSHPAK JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist as being aggrieved against the order dated 20.02.2019, as rendered by the Fast Tract Court/Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO, Haldwani, whereby the learned Sessions Judge while exercising his powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has summoned the revisionist for his alleged involvement in the commission of an offence under Section 376(2) of IPC to be read with Section 5/6 POCSO Act. Before going into the controversy and as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist, certain essential facts are required to be dealt with so as to come to a logical conclusion with regard to the propriety of the summoning order under challenge dated 20.02.2019.

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the revisionist was that a FIR being FIR No. 138/2017 was registered under Section 376(2) IPC read with Section 5/6 POCSO Act was registered at Thana Haldwani, District Nainital as against one - Bablu Bisht, a teacher in the School, owned by revisionist, who is said to have been involved in commission of an offence as referred above. As per the narration of the set of allegations levelled in the said FIR, it was alleged therein that Bablu Bisht, who was a teacher, working in a school, being run and managed by Ankit Joshi are said to have been involved in physically molesting a minor girl student of only 51/2 years age, of the school run under the name and style of "Aurum The Global School, Haldwani".

(3.) The complainant to the said FIR i.e. Harpreet Singh, who is the father of the victim, had lodged an FIR alleging therein that for couple of months together, the accused - Bablu Bisht, was alleged in the FIR with allegation to be involved in commission of an offence under Section 376(2) with his minor daughter of the complainant, who was a student of Class-I. In terms of the FIR, as lodged on 19.04.2017, in the FIR, it was alleged that the daughter of the complainant named as Harlin Kaur, who was of only 51/2 years of age and student of class I, has been mentally and physically exploited by the accused persons, named in the FIR, and particularly, as per the set of allegation which has been levelled it was against the teacher, who used to forcefully touched the private parts of the minor daughter of the complainant, and by taking her in the bathroom, he is accused of having committed the offence under Section 376(2) upon her. Not only this, the accused are also said to have threatened the victim and the complainant not to divulge the said incident to anyone, otherwise they would take severe action against the daughter of the complainant.