SITAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Aryan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for State.

(2.) Present application has been preferred with prayer to set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dtd. 7/10/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly as well as entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 (State vs. Arun & another) under Sec. 70(2), 89, 123, 351(3) of BNS and 4(2), 5(j)(ii)/6 and 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS- Aonla, District Bareilly, pending in court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

(3.) It is the case of the applicant that after institution of case at Case Crime no. 375 of 2024 which culminated into conduction of the detailed investigation by concerned Investigating Officer who preferred charge sheet in pursuance to Sec. 123/65(1)/351(3)/89 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short "BNS"), 2023 and 4(2) of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 only against one Arun son of Mahesh and the applicant has been exonerated at the time of preferring charge sheet. But later on, once, charge sheet along with entire Case Diary has been put before learned court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 by taking cognizance of offence, applicant has been summoned on the basis of the statement recorded by the victim herself under Sec. 183 BNS, 2023 in pursuance to Sec. 70(2), 89, 123, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sec. 4(2), 5(j)(ii)/6, 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.