Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Shashank Tripathi and learned A.G.A. Sri Prashant Kumar and perused the record.
(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to call for record and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.4.2018 passed by Learned Special Judge, (POCSO)/ Additional Session Judge, Court No. 14, District Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 20 of 2015 (Km. Nandni Yadav Vs. Surendra Tiwari), under Sections 323, 354Ka, 504, 506 IPC & Section 190; of POCSO Act, P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Naga as well as entire proceedings of the present case.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned trial court has committed error in rejecting the application of the revisionist under sections 227 Cr.P.C. dated 29/06/2016 wherein apart from the factual disputes, the legal objection raised, was that in view of the provision under sections 204 (2) of Cr.P.C. no summons or warrant can be issued to the accused unless list of prosecution witnesses is annexed therewith and further reliance is placed upon Dinesh Kumar Raizada vs Satya Narain and Another, 2014 7 ADJ 506. Further in Para 16 of the said application it was also mentioned that summoning order dated 08/09/2015 was wholly illegal and not tenable in the eye of law, hence the entire proceeding of the case was liable to be turned down and that till the disposal of the said application, the proceedings were required to be suspended.;