JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner Mohan Singh @ Raj Singh challenging the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 12/2010 whereby he has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 366, 363, 344 and 120B I.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are set out herein below. One Ramesh Kumar lodged a written report at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar on 21.5.2010 alleging inter alia that he is a resident of Kedar Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar. He further alleged that his niece Kanchan Rani was a minor, who went missing on 15.5.2010 whilst her mother, brother and sister had gone out for some work. The whereabouts of Kanchan Rani were searched but no information was forthcoming. The mobile of Kanchan Rani was also switched off. On enquiry being made from the family members and the neighbours, it was found that a few boys living nearby used to talk to Kanchan Rani and that Kanchan Rani used to frequently visit . the house of Pushpa Jangid and Lovely resident of Bharatpur and probably, Pushpa Jangid and one Lovely had taken away Kanchan Rani after coercing her. It has further alleged that Kanchan Rani had also taken away one F.D.R. of Oriental Bank of Commerce and her educational documents with her. On the basis of the aforesaid report, F.I.R. No. 73/2010 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, Mst. Kanchan Rani was recovered on 30.5.2010 and her statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as per which, the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was added. The petitioner was arrested and the educational documents of the prosecutrix were also seized. Kanchan Rani expressed her desire to go with her paternal aunt Paramjeet Kaur on which she was handed over to Paramjeet Kaur. Thereafter, the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 10.6.2011. The petitioner was arrested and the educational documents of the prosecutrix were also seized. Kanchan Rani expressed her desire to go with her paternal aunt Paramjeet Kaur on which she was handed over to Paramjeet Kaur. Thereafter, the statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 10.6.2011. The investigation revealed that Kanchan Rani was taken away by the petitioner by giving her false assurance of marriage and thereafter, an affidavit' of marriage was executed on 15.5.2010 and the petitioner contacted physical relations with the prosecutrix between the period off 15.5.2010 to 30.5.2010 and accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 363, 366A, 366, 344, 376 and 120B I.P.C. and against one Lalit Kumar for offence under Sections 363, 366, 344 and 120B I.P.C. 4. The case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar. The date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix reveals that her date of birth was 24.7.1992 as per the school record and when the prosecutrix was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she disclosed her age to be 171h years. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix specifically stated that she left the house of her mother suo moto because her mother used to scold her. Thereafter, she called out the petitioner from Deep Singh Gurudwara for the purpose of arranging of room for her. She further stated that the petitioner told her to go back to her parent's house because he was apprehensive of misbehaviour from her parents. The petitioner talked to her employer Lalit Kumar and arranged a room in the premises of Lalit Kumar for her. There, Lalit Kumar also gave her advice that she should go back to her parent's house. She specifically stated that Raj, the petitioner, kept on telling her to go back to her parent's house but she did not return because she apprehended that she would be beaten by her parents. She further stated that the documents of marriage were executed between her and Raj on 14.5.2010. She specifically stated that during the period for which she stayed in the house of Lalit Kumar, petitioner met her only on one occasion and on that day also, she was advised by the petitioner to go back to her parent's house. She further stated that the documents of marriage were executed between her and Raj on 14.5.2010. She specifically stated that during the period for which she stayed in the house of Lalit Kumar, petitioner met her only on one occasion and on that day also, she was advised by the petitioner to go back to her parent's house. The petitioner also told her that he would marry her after taking consent of both the family members but she did not agree to the suggestion and that is why the document of marriage was executed on 14.5.2011. She further stated that she gave statement against the petitioner under the pressure of her parents. On the basis of this statement wherein the girl has specifically stated that she apprehended the threat of life at the hands of her parents and her desire to sent her to jail, the Magistrate directed the girl to be sent to Nari Niketan. Be that as it may, when the matter came up for consideration of framing of charges, the learned trial Judge discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. but at the same time, has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 366, 363, 344 and 120B I.P.C. and against Lalit Kumar for offences under Sections 366, 212, 344 and 120B I.P.C. 5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the statement of the abducted girl recorded by the Magistrate, it becomes apparent that the abducted girl though being below 18 years age, has not been taken out of the guardianship of anybody nor she has been induced to marry the petitioner nor it is the case of the prosecution that the abducted girl was kept in wrongful confinement and as such, the charges are absolutely illegal. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and perused the order impugned as well as the material available on record and particularly, the statement of the abducted girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 8. Un-disputedly, the abducted girl of her own freewill and volition has stated that she left her parent's house on her own freewill. There was no coercion nor has the petitioner given any assurance to the abducted girl that he would marry her. Un-disputedly, the abducted girl of her own freewill and volition has stated that she left her parent's house on her own freewill. There was no coercion nor has the petitioner given any assurance to the abducted girl that he would marry her. As such, the essential ingredients of offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. are not made out from the highest allegations of the I.P.C. are not made out from the highest allegations of the prosecution. There is no allegation of the abducted girl in her statements recorded on oath that she was kept in wrongful confinement and thus, offence under Section 344 I.P.C. is also not made out. There is no question of any conspiracy being hatched between the petitioner and Lalit Kumar in the backdrop of these circumstances. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 9.9.2011 framing charges is hereby quashed. This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner was alleged to be the principle offender and the charges against him are being quashed by this Court, therefore, there would be no justification for the trial of the co-accused Lalit Kumar who is alleged to have given shelter to the abducted girl. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge cum Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 12/2010 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner as well as Lalit Kumar is hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Revision allowed. *******