JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner whereby, the learned Trial Judge accepted the application filed by the prosecution and directed summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in the case alongwith the charge-sheeted accused Navratan. Facts in brief are that the complainant Khetpal lodged a written report at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner on 23.11.2013 alleging inter alia that his daughter Sushri 'S' was married to Gajendra Suthar on 18.11.2013. The accused reside in the complainant's neighbourhood. Navratan was keeping an evil eye on Sushri 'S' since long. She had come to the maternal home on 21.11.2013 but was not seen in the house on the next morning. The complainant thereupon, started a search for his daughter. When inquiry was made from the accused persons, Choru Lal told the complainant that his son had succeeded in achieving his goal and that he could not do anything about it. As per the complainant, Navratan, in conspiracy with his father, mother and wife abducted his daughter alongwith her gold & silver ornaments as well as cash. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.425/2013 was registered at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the I.O. concluded that the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were made out against the accused Navratan and filed a charge-sheet only against him in the court concerned. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where, the same was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner for trial. Charges were framed against the accused Navratan for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At that stage, the complainant submitted an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in the trial court with a prayer to summon the accused petitioners as additional accused in the case. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 27.07.2015 which is assailed in the instant revision. 2. Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 27.07.2015 which is assailed in the instant revision. 2. Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecutrix Sushri 'S' is a major married woman. She was having a long standing love affair with Navratan and eloped with him just three days after her forced marriage with Gajendra Suthar. She was traced out on 28.11.2013. When the I.O. noted her apparel and general condition, she was wearing all her ornaments. Her statement was recorded by the I.O. on 28.11.2013 and in such statement, she categorically stated that she was having a prevailing friendship with Navratan for the last 6-7 years. Neither did Navratan abduct her nor was she subjected to any immoral act by Navratan. Thereafter, she was allowed to go with her father. Before being traced out by the I.O., the lady suo motu appeared before the CJM, Sikar and submitted an application dated 27.11.2013 mentioning therein that she had gone with Navratan of her own free will without any threat duress or coercion and that the FIR No.435/2013 lodged by her family members was based on false aspersions. The lady was later on examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with the present case on 07.12.2013 and in such statement, she changed her version and alleged that on the night of 21.11.2013, while she had returned from her matrimonial home to her father's house, Navratan called on her mobile at 03.30 am and coerced her to come out of the house without telling anybody. He threatened that in case she hesitated, he would kill her family members. She knew Navratan from before because he used to live in the neighbourhood. She alleged that Navratan caught hold of her hair and forcibly boarded her into a car in which, Leeladhar was present from before. Leeladhar gagged her mouth and threatened that she would be killed if she shouted. She was taken to Jaipur. The car was parked at the parking lot of the Jaipur Airport and then, she was taken to Mumbai by flight. From Mumbai, they boarded a bus and went to Pune. At Pune, she was kept in a hotel for two days where, the accused Navratan established forcible sexual relations with her. She was taken to Jaipur. The car was parked at the parking lot of the Jaipur Airport and then, she was taken to Mumbai by flight. From Mumbai, they boarded a bus and went to Pune. At Pune, she was kept in a hotel for two days where, the accused Navratan established forcible sexual relations with her. During this period, Choru Lal, Kamla and Shashi used to call Navratan and the lady allegedly overheard them telling Navratan that he should not bother and should freely continue his sexual romp with Sushri 'S'. Choru Lal had allegedly given a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Navratan with an insinuation that Sushri 'S' would not be allowed to live respectably either in her matrimonial home or at her father's house. Navratan did not allow her to talk with anybody. She was kept tied up. They left Pune on 24.11.2013 and came to Jaipur via Mumbai and Ahmedabad. He picked up his car from Jaipur and took her to Sikar. There, he engaged a lawyer. Choru Lal called Navratan and told him that he should somehow get a favourable statement of the girl recorded and if she hesitates then she should be killed. However, the lawyer at Sikar advised that her statement could be recorded only at the Bikaner court. They came down to Dungargarh from Sikar. Navratan's parents and Shashi called Navratan and told that the situation was not favourable and thus, they should stay back and the girl should be coerced into giving a favourable statement and then she may be ditched. Thereafter, she was dropped off at the Museum Circle, Bikaner. Leeladhar came around and administered some intoxicating drug to her. Then she was pressurised and taken to the police station. She was threatened that Leeladhar's father was in police and that she should give a favourable statement or else she would be killed. She further alleged that her maternal relatives were still being threatened that if they did not change their statements, then they would be killed. She further alleged that Navratan took away her ornaments and sold them. The I.O., however, did not find the entire theory put up by the girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. substantiated and accordingly, the offence under Section 376 IPC is applied against Navratan. She further alleged that Navratan took away her ornaments and sold them. The I.O., however, did not find the entire theory put up by the girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. substantiated and accordingly, the offence under Section 376 IPC is applied against Navratan. The tower location of Leeladhar for the questioned period showed his presence at Bikaner from 22.11.2013 to 28.11.2013 and accordingly, the I.O. did not find him involved in the case. None of the petitioners were found involved in the entire sequence of the alleged offensive activities and thus, a chargesheet was filed only against Navratan. As stated above, the trial court exercised powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioners, and summoned them to face trial by the order dated 27.07.2015 which is challenged in the instant revision. 3. Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie, the story set out in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is totally false, fabricated and cooked up. He urged that on the face of the record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was having a long standing love affair with the accused Navratan from well before her marriage. She was married to Gajendra Suthar against her wishes. She returned from her matrimonial home just three days after her marriage and clandestinely eloped with her lover Navratan. He contended that the story put-forth by the prosecutrix in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Navratan called her in the night of 21.11.2013 and forced her to come out of the house under the threat of killing her family members is palpably false and fabricated. Had there been an iota of truth in the said theory, the girl could have immediately raised an alarm and got Navratan apprehended then and there. As per him, the fact that the prosecutrix left her father's house at 03.30 am. while taking away her ornaments, cash, etc. clearly establishes that the case is one of voluntary elopement of a mature married woman with her paramour Navratan and that the story of abduction under threat and duress, etc. is totally fictional. As per him, the fact that the prosecutrix left her father's house at 03.30 am. while taking away her ornaments, cash, etc. clearly establishes that the case is one of voluntary elopement of a mature married woman with her paramour Navratan and that the story of abduction under threat and duress, etc. is totally fictional. He further contended that the I.O., conducted thorough investigation and found that the allegation of Leeladhar having accompanied the prosecutrix and Navratan to Mumbai is false because the foolproof evidence in form of tower detail location of Lelladhar's mobile phone established his presence at Bikaner right from 22.11.2013 to 28.11.2013. He further urged that the prosecutrix was a free agent at the time when she appeared at the police station i.e. on 28.11.2013. The accused admittedly did not accompany her. Had any kind of threat or duress been exercised on the prosecutrix by the accused persons, then she could have spoken out about the same when she appeared at the police station and gave her first statement on 28.11.2013. He further urged that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused Navratan from Jaipur to Mumbai in a flight. Large number of security personnel are deployed at the airport and if at all, the lady was being abducted against her wishes, she could have easily raised an alarm at the airport. However, she kept silent and voluntarily accompanied Navratan to Mumbai and Pune where they stayed together in a hotel and indulged in extramarital carnal relations. He thus urged that ex-facie, the entire case of the prosecution regarding Navratan having abducted the prosecutrix under the threat of killing her maternal family members and the petitioners having conspired and facilitated such acts of Navratan is nothing but a figment of imagination and hence, the order impugned should be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri M.S. Purohit, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that the prosecutrix was an inexperienced girl and had been married just three days before the incident. That there was no occasion for the girl to have voluntarily accompanied Navratan on 23.11.2013 because she was happily married with Gajendra Suthar. They urged that the prosecutrix was an inexperienced girl and had been married just three days before the incident. That there was no occasion for the girl to have voluntarily accompanied Navratan on 23.11.2013 because she was happily married with Gajendra Suthar. It was further contended that the accused petitioners also conspired in the entire sequence of event and thus, the trial court was perfectly justified in summoning them to face trial as additional accused while exercising powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the material on record. 6. Firstly, I proceeded to examine the legality and validity of the impugned order. Manifestly, by the time, the impugned order came to be passed, the trial court had already framed charge against the accused Navratan. Thus, the stage of Section 190 Cr.P.C. had already been crossed when, the trial court proceeded to accept the application submitted by the prosecution to summon the petitioners as additional accused. In this background, ex-facie the impugned order is bad in the eye of law as the stage of summoning additional accused under Section 190 Cr.P.C. had been crossed and after that, the only power available to the trial court for summoning additional accused would become available at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. i.e. after recording of evidence at the trial. Furthermore, the Special Judge had received the case after commitment and as such, it could not exercise powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C. which are only available to the court before whom the charge-sheet is presented. The committal court can summon accused by resorting to the powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C. as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC 306 or under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording evidence. Once the trial court frames charges against the accused received by it on committal, the threshold of Section 193 Cr.P.C. no longer exist and law does not permit addition of additional accused thereafter without recording evidence. 7. In view of these facts, manifestly the impugned order is in bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. Now, coming to merits of the case. 8. 7. In view of these facts, manifestly the impugned order is in bad in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. Now, coming to merits of the case. 8. As discussed above and admittedly, the prosecutrix was a mature married woman aged 27 years when the incident occurred. She had been married with Gajendra Suthar on 18.11.2013 and returned to her matrimonial home on 22.11.2013. She allegedly received a threatening call from the accused Navratan in the early hours of 23.11.2013 and allegedly feeling pressurised thereby and without raising a murmur of protest, she left her father's house and went with Navratan. They travelled together to Jaipur, Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Sikar, etc. In her statement recorded by the police on 28.11.2013, Smt. 'S' categorically stated that she was having intimate relations with Navratan for the last 6-7 years and that both often met each other. She voluntarily accompanied Navratan and both visited various places viz. Jaipur, Hyderabad, etc. and returned back. She clearly stated that she was not abducted by Navratan nor did he establish any immoral carnal relations with her. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as late as on 13.12.2013 and in such statement, she tried to implicate the petitioners as well, in addition to Navratan. However, apparently, the tenor of the said statement wherein, the prosecutrix implicated the petitioners as virtual conspirators with Navratan is absolutely fabricated, fictional and a bundle of lies. The prosecutrix tried to portray in the said statement that Leeladhar had accompanied her and Navratan till Mumbai. However, the said allegation stands totally falsified by the mobile call details/ tower details of Leeladhar's mobile sim collected by the I.O. during investigation on the basis whereof, it was concluded and rightly so that the accused Leeladhar was present in Bikaner from 22.11.2013 till 28.11.2013. The prosecutrix tried to implicate the other accused persons i.e. Choru Lal and Kamla being the parents and Smt. Shashi being the wife of Navratan by portraying them to be conspirators. Ex-facie, the story put-forth by the prosecutrix in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that these persons used to call Navratan on phone and encouraged him to vilify the prosecutrix is nothing but an absolute creation of imagination. Ex-facie, the story put-forth by the prosecutrix in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that these persons used to call Navratan on phone and encouraged him to vilify the prosecutrix is nothing but an absolute creation of imagination. It is absolutely contrary to natural human conduct that the traditional parents of a married Hindu man would encourage and even go to the extent of glorifying the immoral act of their son who had eloped with another married woman. Further, it cannot be believed even for a moment that, a wife would instigate her own husband to elope with another woman and would encourage him to indulge in an extramarital affair. Thus, the entire fictional story set out by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Leeladhar accompanied and assisted Navratan in her abduction and that the other accused persons provided financial and emotional support to Navratan and used to encourage him on phone is absolutely unworthy of credence. The trial court committed a gross error and misdirected itself in accepting the totally fictional story set up by the prosecutrix in the belated statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. while summoning petitioners as additional accused in the case. The finding of the I.O. in the final report that the petitioners were in no manner engaged or connected with the immoral activities of Navratan and the prosecution is absolutely justified. 9. Even if the admitted circumstances as emerging from the prosecution case are considered then apparently it is a clear case of a mature woman married against her wishes, eloping with her paramour who also is a married man as a consequence of their long standing love affair. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained on merits as well. 10. Accordingly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner whereby the petitioners were summoned as additional accused to face trial with the charge-sheeted accused Navratan for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The trial of the principal accused Navratan shall continue.