JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the the parties. Admit. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Vimal Mathur accepts notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and not objected to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition has been heard for final disposal today. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 2-4-1986 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalore by which it was ordered that the complaint under Section 193 Indian Penal Code may be filed in the court against petitioner Leela. 4. The facts of the case are that on 11-6-1984 a report was filed by Raju Singh, father of petitioner Leela that she has been abducted by Parbat Singh and Jabar Singh. A case was registered under sections 363 & 366, Indian Penal Code against these two persons. On 25-6-1984 Leela was recovered after 17 days. She was entrusted to her father on 2-7-1984. On 2-7-1984 she was produced before the Magistrate for her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC where she has supported the prosecution case about her being taken by Prabat Singh and Jabar singh and the later marrying her against her Will. When she was examined at the trial she gave the statement that she had gone with Parbat Singh of her own accord and no force was used and that she had married Parbat Singh. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused in that criminal case but passed the impugned order for proceeding under Section 193 Indian Penal Code on the ground that Leela has given statement at the trial which is contradictory to her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that after remaining away from her father's house for about 7 days when the girl was recovered by the police on 25-6-1984, she was kept in police custody upto 24-7-1984 when she was entrusted to her father. It was two days thereafter that the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC was recorded. According to the learned Counsel she was under the influence of police and under the pressure of her father and therefore stated before the Magistrate as directed by them. In that view of the matter the learned Counsel submits that statement under Section 164 Cr. It was two days thereafter that the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC was recorded. According to the learned Counsel she was under the influence of police and under the pressure of her father and therefore stated before the Magistrate as directed by them. In that view of the matter the learned Counsel submits that statement under Section 164 Cr. PC was not a narration of true facts in a free atmosphere. 6. The only argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC was recorded two days after the police had entrusted the girl to her father and therefore, there was no question of police influence or pressure. 7. As is evident from the judgment dated 2-4-1986, Leela at the time of trial, was living with Parbat Singh as his married wife without there being any pressure upon her by the accused. This indicates that the statement of Leela in the court was not a false one. 8. In such circumstances there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statement under Section 164 might not have been given under free atmosphere. 9. The revision petition is allowed. The part of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, so far it telates to the prosecution of petitioner Leela under Section 193 Indian Penal Code is set aside.Revision allowed. *******