JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that cognizance taken for various offence under IPC against the petitioners under Section 9/10 and Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act 2012 and also read with Section 19(2) are not made out Prima facie from the complaint and the learned Judge POCSO courts has committed error. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State does not support the order passed by the Special Court, POCSO, Sawai Madhopur and submits that such orders not only hamper the regular functioning of the police but also demoralize the entire police force. It is also stated that no proceedings under Section 197 Cr.P.C. were followed before taking cognizance against the police officials. 3. Counsel for the complainant vehemently supports the impugned order, however, he has been unable to show as to how the learned Judge has brought the case under POCSO Act. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners had gone to the particular site for arresting individual Raju and Shaitan who were arrested and the complainant as well as the other family members had attempted to prevent them from arresting the concerned accused Raju and Shaitan, which resulted in certain injuries caused on the individual family members as the police was stopping them and causing interference in performance of their duties in arresting the concerned accused. The said aspects have been completely overlooked by the concerned Judge while taking cognizance and passing orders of issuing summons and arrest warrants to the police officials vide his order dated 18.12.2020. 5. Observations have also been made to DG to transfer the senior police officials including SP and also take departmental action against them in the cognizance order itself. The directions for payment of compensation have also been issued and further proceedings in the criminal case registered against the said accused have also been stalled. 6. In view of the definition of sexual assault explained under Section 7 of the POCSO Act where injury caused on any minor has to be combined with sexual intent, this court finds that the Learned Judge has not stated of there being any evidence showing sexual intent of the police officials who went to arrest the accused. From the perusal of the complaint also, no such sexual intent is found to be made out. 7. Admit. Call for the record. 8. From the perusal of the complaint also, no such sexual intent is found to be made out. 7. Admit. Call for the record. 8. Notice need not be issued as the learned counsel has already put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. 9. In the meanwhile and till further orders, the effect and operation of the order dated 18.12.2020 shall remain stayed and Special Court, POCSO, Sawai Madhopur is restrained from further proceedings in the complaint case No. 1/2020.