JUDGMENT 1. 1. A typical case of abuse of process of the court has come to limelight during the arguments of this appeal which has been filed by two accused-appellants against their conviction and sentence under Section 363, IPC, of two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 6 months' R.I. 2. It is surprising and shocking how the accused-appellants have been convicted? The story which is unfolded, it self is interesting and revealing. It all centre-rounds the alleged kidnapping of Mst. Budho which again is having its pivot in the kidnapping of boy, Ram Gilas. It would be untraditional but, I would like to mention the facts first, which I have found out on a through screening of the record after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Ram Gilas aged 13 years was grazing the cattle when four persons out of whom three had guns, had caught hold of him and kidnapped him. 4. A report was lodged by Ram Chandra S/O Phoolya of this incident who is brother of Ram Gilas at the police station Kailadevi on 31-7-1973 at 12,30 p.m. This is proved by Ex. D. 3. There after Ex. D. 4 to 11 and 12 reveal that the effort was made to locate the miscreants and get the boy released but they could not succeed. Ultimately on 1-9-73 according to the Ex. D. 13, the boy was got released after an encounter with the police. In between, it appears that on 28-8-73 according to Ex. D 16, one approver met. the police authorities and told them that the accused/miscreants who arc holding the boy Ram Gilas are prepared to release the boy in case Mst. Sua Bai who is with Gappe Meena is given to them. On this, the police authorities told and thought that a plan may be made to show the girl to the accused/(miscreants) and then after showing the girl when the miscreants come out to take her, to arrest the miscreants in effort to get the boy released also. The police then went and tried but they could not get Sua Bai who also concealed herself on knowing the plan of the dacoits to take her. The police then went and tried but they could not get Sua Bai who also concealed herself on knowing the plan of the dacoits to take her. Sua Bai herself concealed because when she came to know that the police also wants her to show her to the dacoits and miscreants for getting the boy released, as she was not prepared to take risk. 5. It was at this juncture that the police came to know that Mst. Budho is married to Prabhu Meena and if that girl is taken for that plan then probably this plan can be worked out. 6. It appears then from Ex. D 18 that as per this plan, Mst. Budho was taken from the village to Arora where her-in-laws were residing and they were told about this plan. Now, curiously interesting feature of this case is that the complainant's father of this girl did not make any complaint at this time that Budho has been taken by the police forcibly. It was on 1-9-73 that this private complaint was filed before the court of Magistrate Karauli. Even when this complaint was filed on 1-9-1973 the girl, Mst. Budho was not produced for evidence and, therefore, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, it appears that in revision, the case was remanded for granting opportunity to examine Mst. Budho. Curiously enough, Budho was never examined in the Magistrate's court either before the registration of the case or after the registration of the case. In complaint case, no person was produced who saw Mst. Budho crying and having forcibly taken by the police as alleged in the complaint. The private complainant alleges that Mst. Budho was got released by the village people from the police custody and them handed over to the husband. Neither the husband was produced nor any village people where Mst. Budho was released, were produced. 7. I am no inclined to go into the evidence because 1 find that there are basic infirmities in the prosecution case and, there is no explanation for the non-production of Mst. Budho, Prabhu Meena husband of Mst. Budho, father-in-law of Mst. Budho or any village people and persons who allegedly rescued Mst. Budho from the police or saw Mst. Budho crying or observing Mst. Budho being forcibly taken by the police without consent of the husband or parents. Budho, Prabhu Meena husband of Mst. Budho, father-in-law of Mst. Budho or any village people and persons who allegedly rescued Mst. Budho from the police or saw Mst. Budho crying or observing Mst. Budho being forcibly taken by the police without consent of the husband or parents. I find that certain important questions have been kept unanswered by the prosecution and the defence theory of the police officers who are accused-appellants that Mst. Budho was taken by the police for the purposes of carrying out the secret plan of getting boy Ram Gilas by showing her as Sua Bai, appears to be plausible and probable duly supported by the entries in the police Roznamcha. Even brother of Gappe whose daughter was married to Phoolya has come in evidence to support the above defence version. 8. In my opinion, the prosecution case in the form of private complaint before the Magistrate is a typical example of gross abuse of process of the court and there is no proof of the offence, what so ever. 9. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they have been convicted & sentenced by the trial court vide its judgment dated 15-4-1977 which here by is quashed and set aside. The appellants are on bail and need not Their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******