JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this revision, the petitioner Ramjan Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 16.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in revision No. 159/2012 whereby the revisional court set aside the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Khajuwala in F.R. Case No. 58/2009 taking cognizance against the private respondents for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g) and Section 120B I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner herein lodged a written report at the P.S. Khajuwala on 21.3.2009 alleging inter-alia that Smt. 'J' d/o Manak Khan is his legally wedded wife. In the month of December, his wife eloped with one Yakar Khan who (Jakir), under the pressure of the community, left her back at the matrimonial home. However, while dropping off Smt. J, Yakar threatened that he would take her away again. Because of intervention of the community elders, no case was lodged by the complainant regarding this incident. On 13.3.2009 in the morning at about 4 O'clock, Yakar Khan again lured and took his wife away with him with the intention of marrying her. The complainant launched a search and came to know that Rameshwar Vishnoi and Januram Jat were also involved in the conspiracy. Rameshwar harbored Yakar Khan for about 10 days and Januram provided the vehicle used for taking his wife away. A community conciliation was attempted on which Yakar Khan's parents and relatives assured that the complainant's wife would be returned safely in 5-10 days and sought a guarantee in return that no legal action should be taken. The complainant alleged that he came to know that the accused persons had forced Smt. J to execute Nikahnama with Yakar and that she had also been subjected to rape. Thereupon, he filed the complaint whereupon, an F.I.R. No. 39/2009 was registered at the P.S. Khajuwala for the offences under Sections 143, 366, 394 and 120B I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conducting investigation, the Police submitted a negative Final Report in the matter. The complainant was given a notice of the negative report. He filed a protest petition upon which, the trial court returned the matter to the Police for further investigation. The Police conducted further investigation and again filed a negative Final Report. After conducting investigation, the Police submitted a negative Final Report in the matter. The complainant was given a notice of the negative report. He filed a protest petition upon which, the trial court returned the matter to the Police for further investigation. The Police conducted further investigation and again filed a negative Final Report. Thereupon, the complainant submitted yet another protest petition and got himself, Smt. 'J', Santok Singh and Ameen Khan examined before the trial court under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 The trial court proceeded to pass the order dated 11.11.2011 taking cognizance against the accused persons in the above terms. The accused challenged the order taking cognizance by filing a revision which came to be allowed by the order dated 16.11.2014 which is assailed in the instant revision filed by the complainant. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 4. It is relevant to mention here that during investigation, the Investigating Officer took on record a complaint which, Smt. 'J' portraying herself to be the wife of Jakir Khan (Yakar Khan) submitted in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur on 1.4.2009 against the petitioner herein, Najire Khan and two other persons alleging inter-alia that she was visting Kaylana lake Jodhpur with her husband Jakir on 31.3.2009. At about 4 O'clock, Ramjan Khan, Najire Khan and his companions came there and exhorted that she had maligned their family in the society. She and her husband Jakir were assaulted. Smt.'J' supported the allegations made in the complaint in her sworn statement recorded by the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 2.4.2009. Jakir Hussain was murdered in the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Chattargarh in the month of August 2009. A prosecution was launched against 7 persons, who stand convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner for various offences including that under Section 302 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 1.8.2012. Perusal of the judgment dated 1.8.2012 pertaining to the murder of Jakir Hussain indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged with a clear allegation that the complainant party bore enmity with Jakir Hussain, who had contracted a love marriage with Smt.'J' and who was living with Jakir at Bikaner. Perusal of the judgment dated 1.8.2012 pertaining to the murder of Jakir Hussain indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged with a clear allegation that the complainant party bore enmity with Jakir Hussain, who had contracted a love marriage with Smt.'J' and who was living with Jakir at Bikaner. The accused party being the matrimonial relatives of Smt. J from her previous marriage with Ramjan the petitioner herein, had hurled insinuations that Smt.'J' as well as Jakir Hussain would be kidnapped and liquidated. The threats were materialised with the kidnapping and murder of Jakir Hussain. Thereafter, Smt. 'J' returned and resumed her matrimonial relations with the complainant and that is why, an entirely new and fictional theory was cooked up and presented in the instant case regarding her so-called abduction, rape etc. In the statement of Smt. 'J' recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 during the protest proceedings of the present case, she alleged that she was initially married to Shaban Khan from whose loins, she bore two children. After death of Shaban Khan, she married Ramjan Khan. She used to work in the fields of people on wage basis. In the year 2008, Jakir asked her to work in his field. For 3-4 days, Jakir detained Smt. 'J' in his house and pressurised her to marry him. When the complainant's brothers and husband Ramjan came to know of this fact, they talked to Jakir to release the lady but he did not relent. A Panchayat was convened. Under the pressure of the Panchayat, Jakir allowed Smt. 'J' to go with her family members but threatened that as soon as he got a chance, he would take her away again. In the year 2009, on the next day to Holi, in the morning at about 4- 5 O 'clock, she had gone out with her son Amanulla for attending the call of nature at which point of time, 8-9 persons viz. the respondents herein surrounded her. Rameshwar was having a gun with which he threatened her. Jakir gagged the mouth of her son and they were taken away forcibly. She was boarded on to a car which was parked on the road. They were taken to an empty house located near Gharsana. From there, they were taken to a Dhani and were kept there for 4-5 days. Jakir gagged the mouth of her son and they were taken away forcibly. She was boarded on to a car which was parked on the road. They were taken to an empty house located near Gharsana. From there, they were taken to a Dhani and were kept there for 4-5 days. In the Dhani, Jakir, Gani, Mukhtyar, Roshan and Riyaj subjected her to rape under the threat of killing her and her son. Then they were taken to a village named Bandkotadi and were confined in a house. There also, Jakir and Gani subjected her to rape. Then she was taken to Jaipur and also kept in a hotel. There also, numerous accused persons subjected her to rape. Then she was taken to Jodhpur and was kept in a hotel. At Jodhpur, Jakir told that her brothers and Ramjan had lodged an F.I.R. against them and threatened that she should give a statement favourable to the accused and implicating her brothers and Ramjan. She was assaulted and forced to sign some papers in the court. She was also forced to appear in the court and under the pressure of the accused, she gave a false statement favouring the accused before the Magistrate. During that period, her son was detained by the accused in the hotel. The learned revisional court took note of all these facts and came to a conclusion that the allegations levelled by Smt. 'J' in her statement recorded during the proceedings of the present protest petition were totally false and fabricated. She herself gave a sworn statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the proceedings of the complaint filed in the month of April 2009 arraigning the complainant and his companions for various offences. The Police collected clinching evidence pointing towards the falsehood of the complainant's case and submitted negative Final Reports on two occasions in the Court assigning detailed, cogent and convincing reasons. The statement of Smt. 'J' recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 alleging that she was subjected to gang rape was recorded as late as on 18.8.2011. The Police collected clinching evidence pointing towards the falsehood of the complainant's case and submitted negative Final Reports on two occasions in the Court assigning detailed, cogent and convincing reasons. The statement of Smt. 'J' recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 alleging that she was subjected to gang rape was recorded as late as on 18.8.2011. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the revisional court committed no error or illegality whatsoever in discarding the said statement because obviously Smt. 'J' was under the influence of the complainant when her belated statement was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 I find no infirmity, illegality or irregularity whatsoever in the impugned order dated 19.11.2012 so as to warrant interference therein. 5. Consequently, the instant revision is dismissed as lacking merit. 6. Record be sent back forthwith.