JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2016, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in S.S.T. no. 23/A of 2016, State vs Simranjeet Singh and another, under Section 376 IPC and Section ¾ of POCSO Act, P.S. Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial in the aforesaid case. 2. The applicant was not named in the FIR. No charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. It was during the course of examination of PW1 that the name of present applicant came to fore. PW1 was cross-examined at some length. Having found a prima facie case against the applicant, the trial court summoned him to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section ¾ of the POSCO Act, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed a certified copy of judgment rendered in S.S.T. no. 23 of 2016, State vs Kamaljeet Singh @ Kuldeep Singh, Pinder Singh, Jaswant Singh @ Jassa and Mahal Singh, who faced the trial under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, to show that all those accused persons, who were named in the FIR, against whom charge sheet was submitted and who faced trial, have been acquitted by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, vide judgment dated 29.11.2016. 4. Had present applicant also faced trial, he would have met the same fate as was met by the co-accused Kamaljeet Singh @ Kuldeep Singh and others. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the case of the applicant, as also the evidence sought to be adduced against him is identical to those who have been acquitted. 5. Section 300 Cr.P.C. comes to the aid of the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the case of the applicant, as also the evidence sought to be adduced against him is identical to those who have been acquitted. 5. Section 300 Cr.P.C. comes to the aid of the applicant. The same reads as under: “a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section thereof.” 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also seeks the benefit of principle of stare decisis which means –‘going by the things decided’. It will, therefore, be a futile exercise to keep the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pending in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Although jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, but this is one such case, in which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 8. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order dated 19.05.2016, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in S.S.T. no. 23/A of 2016, State vs Simranjeet Singh and another, under Section 376 IPC and Section ¾ of POCSO Act, P.S. Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed. 9. However, liberty is granted to the complainant / State / victim to move for recall of this order, if and when the order recording acquittal of co-accused Kamaljeet Singh @ Kuldeep Singh and others is reversed by the competent court.