JUDGMENT Giridhar Malaviya 1. This application under section 482 CrPC has been moved by Javed Akhtar who has been summoned by Xth Addl Sessions Judge, Varanasi, on an application moved by the Public Prosecutor u/Sec. 319 CrPC, by his order dated 13-1-1989. 2. On 25-5-1987 Smt Laxmi Devi lodged a report at police station Chowk, Varanasi, that her daughter Seema aged aboutl3 or 14 years reading in class VII of Arya Mahila Inter College had been missing since the night between 24th and 25th May, 1987. She had stated in her report that Shahid, Naiyyar and Kanhaiya were seen by the neighbours moving around her house and they were suspected to have enticed away and kidnapped Km Seema. The police investigated the case and submitted a charge' sheet against the three accused persons mentioned above However on the basis of the evidence on record, the Public Prosecutor asked the court to summon applicant Javed Akhtar to stand his trial by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge as mentioned above. It is relevant to mention that in between, after the girl had been recovered on 26-5-1987, her statement u/Sec. 164 CrPC had been recorded when she was produced before the competent magistrate. The applicant is aggrieved against the order summoning him under the provisions of section 319 CrPC. The applicant has annexed the entire evidence which has been recorded in the case during the investigation the evidence which has been recorded in the court below as also the statement of Km. Seema recorded u/Sec. 164 CrPC. 3. After this court on 12-9-1989 had issued notice to the opposite parties fixing 16-10-1989 asking the opposite party to show cause why this application be not allowed, on 25-10-1989 an application for impleadment was moved on behalf of Smt. Lax mi Devi. Thereafter a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Sent. Laxmi Devi a copy of which was served on counsel for the applicants on 1-11-1989. Since then various applications were moved by the opposite party Laxmi Devi to get the matter finally disposed off bat the case could not be taken up, as on different dates learned counsel for applicant Javed Akhtar had sent illness slip. Thereafter on 25-7-1990 this case was directed to be listed peremptorily as the first case on 31-7-1990. Since then various applications were moved by the opposite party Laxmi Devi to get the matter finally disposed off bat the case could not be taken up, as on different dates learned counsel for applicant Javed Akhtar had sent illness slip. Thereafter on 25-7-1990 this case was directed to be listed peremptorily as the first case on 31-7-1990. The case was thereafter again directed to be listed peremptorily as the first case on 7-8-1990 and thereafter again as the first case peremptorily on 17-8- 1990. The case having not been listed in the list as per directions mentioned above, on 30-8-1990, the office was directed to list the case peremptorily as the first case on 6-9-1990. Acceding to the request of learned counsel for the applicant on 6-9-1990, the case was again directed to be listed peremptorily as the first case for admission on 12-9-1990. That is how the case came up before me for admission. Heard learned counsel for applicant Sri Dinesh Chandra and Sri N. N. Singh learned counsel for opposite party no 5 at some length and went through the entire statement appended with this petition as also the application, annexure no- 3 and the order passed on the said application, which is the impugned order. 4. The stand taken in this application was that the court below had erred in summoning the applicant u/Sec 319 CrPC as the applicant was a good citizen of the locality coming from a respectable family of Varanasi district and was also president of Vyapar Mandal, President District Cricket Association as also the Secretary of District Lok-Dal, Varanasi. It was further mentioned in the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of this application u/Sec- 482 CrPC, that there was enmity (with him) in political circle and the people of locality were jealous on account of his reputation and with a view to damage his reputation his enemies bad got the applicant falsely implicated in this case The other ground for seeking interference by this court was that on investigation the investigating agency bad found no case whatsoever against the applicant; and in any case, no offence u/Secs. 363/366 Indian Penal Code was made out against the applicant. The court below while summoning the applicant bad considered the statement of Km Seema. In the said statement Km. Seema had stated that applicant Javed Akhtar had told her to live with Zahir. 363/366 Indian Penal Code was made out against the applicant. The court below while summoning the applicant bad considered the statement of Km Seema. In the said statement Km. Seema had stated that applicant Javed Akhtar had told her to live with Zahir. She further stated that when Naivyar had taken her to the house of homeguard near Seva Sadan Hospital, applicant Javed Akhtar had also arrived there and had asked her to make a statement at the police station that her mother used to beat her and wanted to set her on fire with the result that she had left her mother's house of her own will. She stated that he had also threatened, that in case she disclosed any name she would be killed. The court below noted that Seema had stated that when she was going to police station thereafter along with Javed Akhtar the police had recovered her. The court below also noted that in her deposition before the court Km. Seema had again stated that Javed Akhtar bad repeated the same words which had been mentioned earlier and bad threatened to kill her in case she nominated any of the accused persons. Consequently finding that Javed Akhtar had also colluded with other accused persons in the abduction of Km. Seema and finding that the name of Javed Akhtar had also figured in the statement of Km. Seema in her statement u/Sec. 161 CrPC, the Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi summoned the applicant to face his trial u/Secs. 363/366 Indian Penal Code. 5. It will be relevant to quote section 363 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under : "Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be to fine." 6. A perusal of this section read with section 366 A, indicates that apart from the person who kidnaps or abducts any woman, the section also contemplates that whoever by means of criminal intimidation induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall also be punishable as aforesaid. Section 366-A reads as follows : "Procuration of minor girl-Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." This section clearly contemplates that apart from such person who actually kidnaps or abducts any woman with intention for illicit intercourse etc., such other persons are also liable for punishment u/Sec. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code who at a subsequent stage participate in the movement of the victim from one place to another when such movement is with the object that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. When after her abduction a girl is kept confined in the house of a different person to be disposed of for leading immoral life, that other person is clearly guilty of the offence. This court in Narva Dheemar v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Alld 55 has held that offence u/Sec. 363 Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence. Consequently after her abduction when Km. Seema was being detained and was asked by the applicant under the threat of death to agree to live with Zahir for being sexually abused, the applicant was also guilty for the offence u/Sec. 366-A IPC, along with the persons who had abducted Km Seema. As Seema at the time of her abduction was alleged to be only 14 years old, the proper section under which the accused would be liable would be section 366-A and not section 366 Indian Penal Code. The result is that the summoning of the applicant by the lower court was not illegal. It is, however made clear that none of the observations made here or based on the real appraisal of evidence in the said case. The trial court shall assess the evidence of fact independently for whatever worth it may be un-inftuenced by these observations, after carefully examining the facts stated by the witnesses for the disposal of this case. This application is accordingly dismissed. They stay order- granted in this case stands automatically vacated. Application dismissed.