JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The present applicant before this Court is a Warden in Junior Hostel of Sherwood College, which is situated in Nainital. In the intervening night of 06/07.10.2014 attempt was made to sexually assault a young boy who is a student of Class IV and a boarder in the said school. An F.I.R. was lodged to this effect by the father of the boy at Police Station Tallital, Nainital on 09.10.2014. After investigation the police have filed a charge-sheet against the Guard as well as the Principal and the present applicant. The charges against the present applicant were under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section 23 of the said Act, reads as under:- “23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.” 2. However, the Special Judge (POCSO) Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, before framing the charges passed an order dated 08.05.2015 wherein the court is prima facie of the view that charges under Section 16/17 read with Section 5/6/9/10 and 21 (1) of POCSO Act, may also be framed against the present applicant and he has been asked to reply to it on the next date, which is fixed for 18.05.2015. 3. This order has been challenged by the applicant before this Court. Those charges have not been formally framed. His contention before this Court is that no offence against him is made out under POCSO, on a bare reading of the aforesaid provision. It is not the contention of the victim that the present applicant was involved in any manner in the said assault. This is, however, being opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.S. Saun, and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, present for the complainant. It is not the contention of the victim that the present applicant was involved in any manner in the said assault. This is, however, being opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. P.S. Saun, and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, present for the complainant. Their contention is that the correct remedy for the applicant is to move the application for his discharge if he believes his argument is that no offence is made out and there is no evidence with the prosecution to prosecute him under the aforesaid Act. He may therefore move an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge, it is submitted. 4. These charges have not been framed as yet. Therefore, there is no question of discharge. The matter stands disposed with the direction to the trial court that on the next date fixed before it the court shall hear the applicant. The applicant will be at liberty to raise all the plea available to him and orders be passed therein only after considering the submission of the applicant, and without being prejudiced by any observations made by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in its earlier order dated 08.05.2015. 5. An apprehension has been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Vipul Sharma, that this order may not dilate the proceedings before the court below. In view thereof, it is made clear that the above directions and observations of this Court only pertain to the case of the present applicant only and shall in no way slow the pace of the proceeding before the trial court.