JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 50/2001 whereby charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioner. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Hanuman Nath filed a report at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner on 23.5.2001 alleging inter alia that he was having two daughters, the elder whereof was already married, the younger Mst. A was in the house. He had gone to his duty at Lalgarh in the morning at about 7 O' clock. His daughter-in-law Saroj and daughter Mst. A were alone in the house. He further alleged that his neighbour's son Sumit s/o Jhanwar Lal, aged about 25 years, was having an evil eye towards his daughter and that he had made some complaints in this regard to Jhanwar Lal and his wife. He alleged that he received a call from his younger son Bunty, aged about 16 years, that Mst. A was missing since morning. He came back and found that Mst. A was not present in the house and Sumit also missing from his house. He suspected that his daughter had been enticed away by Sumit. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 160/2001 was registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police during the course of investigation, recovered Mst. A, the abducted girl, on 3.6.2001. On being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was having close relations with the petitioner for last about 1½ years. She further alleged that her parents had forcibly engaged her with one Navneet about two months back. She clearly stated that despite her unwillingness, her parents were forcing her to marry Navneet. She further stated that when Sumit heard about her engagement with Navneet, he stopping talking to her. On 20.5.2001, she called Sumit on telephone and asked him to take her away but Sumit refused. Thereafter, she again called him and pleaded with him that her parents were marrying her forcibly against her desire and insisted that she would have relations only with him. She called Sumit to a hotel at Shivbadi Road, Bikaner on 23.5.2001. On 20.5.2001, she called Sumit on telephone and asked him to take her away but Sumit refused. Thereafter, she again called him and pleaded with him that her parents were marrying her forcibly against her desire and insisted that she would have relations only with him. She called Sumit to a hotel at Shivbadi Road, Bikaner on 23.5.2001. She and Sumit both reached the Hotel. They went to Dungargarh and stayed there in a hotel at night. On 25.5.2001, they left Dungargarh and went to Jaipur and stayed there at a hotel opposite the Railway Station. On 27.5.2001, they travelled to Ajmer and stayed in a hotel at Ajmer. On 28.5.2001, they filed an application for marriage at Arya Samaj and got married on 2.6.2001 by performing the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter they stayed at Ajmer. She further stated that Sumit did not establish any physical relations with her before the marriage and they consensually consummated the marriage after the marriage. On 4.6.2001, while she was sitting alone at the Dargah, the police took her to Bikaner. She clearly stated that Sumit never gave any allurement to her and did not entice her and that she had gone with Sumit of her own freewill and married him voluntarily. 5. The I.O. also recorded the statements of various hotel owners where the petitioner and the abducted girl had stayed after eloping. 6. The prosecutrix was thereafter examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2001 wherein she alleged that she was offered tea by Asha and on consuming the same, she became unconscious. She was taken to Teja Garden and from there, Sumit and Jitendra took her to Ajmer and there, Sumit forcibly married her at the Shiv Temple. Thereafter, she was taken to Jaipur and there Sumit forcibly established physical relations with her under the pretext that they were married. She has further alleged that they went to Ajmer where they were married by the Arya Samaj people. The significant fact in the said statement is that she has not stated that the ceremonies of marriage which took place between Sumit and herself were performed under any force or duress. 7. The photographs of the marriage contracted between Sumit and prosecutrix at Arya Samaj, Ajmer were recovered by the Investigating Officer. The significant fact in the said statement is that she has not stated that the ceremonies of marriage which took place between Sumit and herself were performed under any force or duress. 7. The photographs of the marriage contracted between Sumit and prosecutrix at Arya Samaj, Ajmer were recovered by the Investigating Officer. A bare look at the photographs would make it apparent that the prosecutrix is happily going through the wedding ceremonies with Sumit. The certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj certifying that Sumit married Mst. A, has also been taken on record. After the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Sections 376 and 120B I.P.C were added to the case. 8. On 17.6.2001, the prosecutrix was re-examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the said statement, she alleged that the earlier statement which she had given to the police was under the pressure of Sumit. She stated that now she had been relieved of the said pressure. She stated that she was allured by Asha for going away with Sumit. Thereafter, Asha forced her to elope with and marry Sumit. She refused but Asha persisted with her evil design. Thereafter, Asha offered her some tea to drink and when she consumed the same, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, Sumit, Yogesh, Sachin, Vinod, Jitendra were sitting around her and at that time, she found herself to be in Teja Garden Hotel. She was not given any satisfactory reply as to why she had been brought there. She was kept confined at that place but on that day, she was not subjected to forcible intercourse. On 30.5.2001, Sumit committed rape with her. She was taken to Jaipur on 31.5.2001 and was kept at the house of maternal uncle of Sumit. Thereafter, both of them were taken to Ajmer by four persons who came from Bikaner in an ambassador car. At Ajmer also, Sumit committed forcible intercourse with her. She was taken to Arya Samaj and there Sumit forced her to go though the wedding ceremonies. 9. At the conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, Asha, Vinod, Yogesh, Sachin and Jitendra. After committal, the trial judge framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B I.P.C. and the remaining accused were charged under Sections 363, 366 and 120B I.P.C. 10. 9. At the conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, Asha, Vinod, Yogesh, Sachin and Jitendra. After committal, the trial judge framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B I.P.C. and the remaining accused were charged under Sections 363, 366 and 120B I.P.C. 10. The petitioner has now approached this Court for quashing of the order framing charges by filing the instant revision petition. 11. It is relevant to mention here that the original file of the case appears to have been destroyed/lost and the trial court vide order dated 8.8.2002, directed reconstitution of the file and the same was reconstituted. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the relations which were established between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were entirely consensual. The prosecutrix was admittedly a girl above 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after being recovered, the prosecutrix, in her initial statement, which was tendered to the I.O., has clearly admitted that whatever relations were established between her and the petitioner were consensual and voluntary. She clearly stated that the petitioner neither gave her any inducement nor was she coerced into the relations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the statement of Mst. A recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has admitted the factum of voluntary marriage solemnised between her and the petitioner at Ajmer and she has not alleged any use of force, threat or coercion in the said ceremonies. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the photographs of the marriage ceremonies are available on the record and from a bare perusal thereof, it would be apparent that such ceremonies were voluntarily happily and consensually solemnised. He has further relied upon the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj wherein also, the factum of marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix having been solemnised on 2.6.2001 has been verified. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the charges which have been framed against the petitioner solely on the basis of belated subsequent statements of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the charges which have been framed against the petitioner solely on the basis of belated subsequent statements of the prosecutrix cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and contended that merely because there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded on different occasions, the charges framed by the learned trial judge against the petitioner cannot be interfered with. He submitted that initially the prosecutrix was under the pressure of the accused, therefore, the true story could not be divulged by her. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix became free from the petitioner's influence, she has given out the true story which was recorded in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the revision deserves to be rejected. 14. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the order impugned and the record. 15. The undisputed facts which are available on the record can be enumerated as under:- (1) The prosecutrix was admittedly a girl above 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. (2) The prosecutrix and the accused are neighbours. Her affinity with accused Sumit is virtually admitted during investigation. (3) The initial statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 5.6.2001. From a bare perusal of the said statement, it is established beyond any manner of doubt that the prosecutrix virtually forced Sumit to go with her and thereafter, marriage ceremonies were solemnised between them voluntarily. (4) In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2001, the prosecutrix has admitted that she was married to the accused Sumit at Arya Samaj, Ajmer on 2.6.2001. She has not alleged even in this statement that the marriage was solemnised by use of force, threat or coercion or by giving any inducement or allurement. (5) The subsequent statement of the prosecutrix, which has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.6.2001, is a grossly exaggerated version but therein also, the fact of marriage ceremony being solemnised at Arya Samaj, Ajmer is admitted. In this statement, she has levelled an allegation that the marriage was solemnised under pressure. (6) The documents/photographs pertaining to marriage ceremonies are available on the record of the trial court. In this statement, she has levelled an allegation that the marriage was solemnised under pressure. (6) The documents/photographs pertaining to marriage ceremonies are available on the record of the trial court. From a bare perusal of the said documents/ photographs, it becomes apparent that whatever ceremonies were solemnised between the accused and the prosecutrix are consensual. In the photographs, the prosecutrix is seen happily going through the wedding ceremonies with the accused. 16. It is true that divergence in the different statements of a witness recorded during the course of investigation cannot be considered to be a reason to discharge the accused by discarding one version and giving precedence to the other. However, the Court has to keep in mind the complete factual scenario and the background of each case while examining the same. The prosecutrix and the accused were both major persons on the date of occurrence and an element of consensual relations is writ large on the face of the record. 17. The prosecutrix, who is a major girl, voluntarily eloped with the petitioner Sumit. The subsequent theory that she was given some intoxicant by Asha and thereafter, she became unconscious, is neither palpable nor plausible. She has travelled with the accused petitioner through various thickly populated areas viz. Jaipur, Ajmer etc. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2001, she has admitted that the marriage ceremonies were solemnised between her and accused at Arya Samaj, Ajmer. There is no allegation in the said statement that the ceremonies were carried out under any threat, coercion or duress. The relevant portion of the statement is quoted hereunder:- " ogka ls eq>s cl }kjk t;iqj ys x;s] t;iqj esa ge nks fnu :dsA gksVy esa :ds FksA mlh jkr esa lqfer esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k o dgk Fkk dh rqe esjh iRuh gksA " " ogkWa ls ge dkj }kjk vtesj x;sA vtesj ,d gksVy esa djhc 3&4 fnu :dsA vtesj esa geus vk;Z lekt esa 'kknh dhA " 18. The incident has taken place almost 12 years back and during the intervening period, the proceedings of the trial have been stayed by this Court in the instant revision. Thus, sending the accused for trial after such a long time would be nothing but an exercise in futility and may even have the effect of traumatising the prosecutrix who must have settled in her life. Thus, sending the accused for trial after such a long time would be nothing but an exercise in futility and may even have the effect of traumatising the prosecutrix who must have settled in her life. If the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is considered in its entirety, it becomes apparent that the physical relations were established by the accused petitioner with the prosecutrix after the marriage ceremonies were solemnised at Doongargarh Shiv Mandir. The prosecutrix has not alleged that such physical relations were established without her consent. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing charges against the accused cannot be sustained. 19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant revision petition succeeds. The order framing charge dated 4.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and all subsequent proceedings of Sessions Case No. 50/2001 against the petitioner as well as the other accused, who have not approached this Court, are hereby quashed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Record be sent back forthwith.Revision allowed. *******