charges against them, be set aside on the ground that the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there was no material on record to even remotely suggest that petitioner had inappropriately touched victims „S‟ or „P‟ or had tried to force himself upon them. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the statement of victim „S‟ in the FIR, the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and her testimony recorded in her examination-in-chief are contradictory, inconsistent and false. It is also argued that the victim „S‟, on the basis of whose statement the FIR had been registered had not levelled any allegation, with respect to inappropriate touching by any of the accused persons. It is also argued that as per FIR, accused Luv and another co-accused Vaibhav were misbehaving with the victims, and not the accused Manish. It is also argued that even if the allegations contained in the FIR or subsequent statements are taken to be true on their face value, the same are insufficient to constitute any offence under Section 354 IPC or Section 10 POCSO Act, against the accused persons. It is also argued that a perusal of statement of Victim „S‟ under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., recorded on the same day reveals that the allegations levelled therein are insufficient to constitute any offence against the accused persons. It is now argued that the victim „S‟ for the first time had levelled allegations qua inappropriate touching by the accused persons or forcing themselves upon victims in her examination-in-chief, recorded on 27.03.2017. It is also argued that even if that testimony is taken to be true, it is not clear as to whom the witness is referring to, while imputing allegation with respect to inappropriate touching. In this regard,
