JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.2.1993 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby the charges for the offences under Sections 366, 452 and 494 IPC were framed against the accused petitioner Poora Ram. 2. On 2.7.91, one Rama lodged a report with the police alleging that on 2.7.91 .at 2 A.M. when all the members of the family were sleeping in his house, co-accused Vela Ram & Ors., came in a jeep armed with lathies and they forcibly took away Mst. Ukardi, the daughter of the complainant. After investigation, the challan was filed against the co-accused Vela Ram, Mangilal, Heera and Kala Ram for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 496 and 447 IPC and the trial proceeded against them. On 3.5.92, a supplementary challan was filed against the petitioner, after recording the supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses after seven months of the incident, the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, who after hearing, framed the charges for the offences under Sections 366, 452 and 494 IPC on 20.2.93 against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order of framing charges, accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. Earlier, on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner was not made accused and, accordingly, the challan was filed against co-accused Vela Ram, Mangilal, Heera and Kala Ram only. Later on, on 3.5.92, a supplementary challan was filed against the petitioner after recording the supplementary statement of the prosecution witnesses after seven months of the alleged incident and it seems that relying on the supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bah has framed the charges against the petitioner as aforesaid. I have gone through the main statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and also the supplementary statements, recorded later-on. It seems that earlier there was nothing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses against the petitioner but later-on, all sorts of allegations have been levelled against him. It is significant to note that in the supplementary statements, the prosecution witnesses have said that they earlier stated against the petitioner also but the Investigating Agency has not recorded the allegations against the petitioner. It is significant to note that in the supplementary statements, the prosecution witnesses have said that they earlier stated against the petitioner also but the Investigating Agency has not recorded the allegations against the petitioner. This explanation of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence and also shows the unfairness on the part of the Investigating Agency because the explanation if true indicates that correct statements had not been recorded. It seems that in order to create the evidence against the petitioner, supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded. If supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses are ignored, there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner to implicate him with the alleged crime and no case is made out against him. As stated above that the supplementary statements do not inspire any confidence because these witnesses, in their statements recorded earlier, did not allege anything against the petitioner and there are indications of unfairness on the part of the Investigating Agency and, therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 5. In the similar circumstances in Hazarilal & Banwarilal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1985 WLN (UC) 221 , the charge framed, was quashed. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the charges framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 366, 452 and 494 IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, vide his judgment dated 20.2.1993, are quashed.Revision allowed. *******