AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 280 of 2010, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.
The petitioner has been made accused in Sadar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 273 of 2010 for the alleged offence u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which was instituted on the basis of the information given by one Md. Shahjahan, who had informed that his widowed sister-in-law had become traceless on 24.1.2010. It was stated in the FIR that subsequently, the informant learnt that the petitioner had abducted her away. On the basis of this information, police case was instituted and investigation was taken up.
It appears from the impugned order that the victim was recovered and her statement was recorded by the police u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she had stated that she wanted to go to Aurangabad to her parents'' place, but the petitioner took her to Korba (Chhatisgarh) against her wishes, where she was informed by some persons that this petitioner intended to marry her. She has also stated that with the help of Madarsa people, she went to the local police station, from where, she was rescued. Her statement was also recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, wherein, she has stated that on 24.1.2010, she had gone out of her house on some pretext, and she called the petitioner, who is her brother-in-law, and requested him to take her to Aurangabad at her parents'' place. The petitioner brought her to Korba, instead of taking her to Aurangabad and she has stated that she wanted to live with her parents at Aurangabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., has clearly stated that she had herself called the petitioner on phone and thereafter, she requested the petitioner to take her to Aurangabad, but she was taken to Korba. Learned counsel has submitted that in her statement, she has not alleged anything to show that the petitioner was abducted by the petitioner with the intention to marry her. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards an informatory petition, which is said to be given by the victim lady before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad, wherein, she had only stated that she has called the petitioner and she had gone to Korba along with him. Learned counsel submitted that in this informatory petition also, she has made no allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the offence u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be made against the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that from the impugned order itself, it is apparent that the victim was taken away by the petitioner to Korba against her wishes, and the petitioner was having the intention to marry her.
After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has discussed the material against the petitioner available in the case diary. From her statement made before the police, the Court below has found that the petitioner was having the intention to marry the victim against her wishes, due to which he had brought her to Korba, even though the victim wanted to go to Aurangabad at her parents'' place. The victim was informed about the intention of the petitioner by some persons at Korba. Thereafter, she took the help of the Madarsa people and she went to the local police station, where she was rescued. In that view of the matter, I find that there is ample material against the petitioner for framing charge u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application, which is accordingly, dismissed.