Santosh Kumar & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this C528 application, applicants have put to challenge the summoning order dated 22.04.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of

Special Sessions Trial No.7 of 2024, State vs. Santosh Kumar & another, under Section 376 IPC and Section 5(j-ii)/6 of the Protection of Children

From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Pauri Garhwal.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations made in the FIR are frivolous and the applicants have falsely been

implicated. He raised serious doubts on the contents of the FIR which stated that the victim was having a stomach ache and when she was taken to

the hospital she delivered a baby boy on questioning she told that forceful intercourse was done by the applicants.

It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that blood samples of the baby boy were not taken in controlled conditions and further

the blood sample of applicants were taken after one month of their arrest, raising serious doubts on the prosecution story.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants that during trial victim and her parents have turned hostile. Furthermore, the FSL report is

highly doubtful and cannot form sole basis of proceedings against the applicants to face the trial.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that offence is of heinous nature; specific role has been assigned to the applicant and there is cogent

material available on record to summon the accused applicants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

From perusal of the FIR, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. In this view of the matter, this Court

does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 528 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to

in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed in-limine.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.