Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Akbar @ Faruk v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 2. By way of this revision, the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.144/2013 directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. An FIR No.101/2013 was registered by one Shokat Mohammed at the Police Station Sardarpura on 22.04.2013 with the allegation that his minor daughter Shahiba had gone from his home on 17.04.2013 for shopping but did not return. He inquired and came to know that Shahiba had been kidnapped by the petitioner Akbar with the intention of marrying her. The age of the girl was given out as 17 years in the report. The girl returned on 27.04.2013 and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, she disclosed that she was having intimacy with the present petitioner. On 17.04.2013, she had gone to Mahaveer Complex for getting the mobile recharge done where, the petitioner Akbar met her. She inquired from Akbar as to where he was going. Akbar replied that he was going Chittorgarh for his personal work. She expressed desire of going with him to Chittorgarh. Akbar advised her not to do so but, she, of her own free will and with the objective of visiting Chittorgarh, accompanied Akbar and went to Chittorgarh. There, they stayed in a hotel and visited different places on their own. Akbar neither misbehaved with her nor did he establish physical relations with her. She stated that she was desirous of marrying Akbar. The same story was repeated in the statement of the girl recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2014. The investigating officer, proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the above offences. The trial Judge, vide order dated 10.06.2014, directed framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record. 4. The sole witness examined by the prosecution so as to bring home the charges against the petitioner was the allegedly kidnapped girl Mst. Shahiba. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record. 4. The sole witness examined by the prosecution so as to bring home the charges against the petitioner was the allegedly kidnapped girl Mst. Shahiba. Neither in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did she state that she had been enticed from the lawful guardianship of her father by the petitioner or that she was kidnapped and taken away by him. She clearly stated that she wanted to visit Chittorgarh and accompanied the accused of her own free will. Thus, no element of enticing and causing the minor to go to any place is disclosed from the admitted case set up by the prosecution. 5. In this background, there was no justification for the trial court to have directed framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC. 6. As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 10.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan and also subsequent proceedings sought to be taken therein against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Record be returned to the trial court.