ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.57/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 143, 147, 366, 370A, 376, 342 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The complainant has lodged a complaint on 20.03.2016 stating that he married Smt. Babita in the year 2005 and having two children. It is stated in the complaint that on 19.03.2016 when his wife namely, Babita stated to have gone to nature call and did not return to home even after an hour, the complainant started searching her and also informed her parents about her missing. Even the parents of the said Babita joined the hands with the complainant and started searching the whereabouts of Babita. Ultimately, they came to know that the victim Babita was moving along with the petitioner on a motorcycle. Having suspected the involvement of the petitioner, a complaint came to lodged against the petitioners and others. 3. During investigation, the victim Babita appeared before the jurisdictional police on 23.03.2016 and gave her statement stating that she was cordial with the petitioner and went along with him. It is further stated by the victim that, when she reached Basavakalyan, three persons were waiting in a jeep and they have taken her to a open land, there was a shed in the land and the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with the victim. As such, the jurisdictional police after obtaining the statement of the victim, have invoked the provisions under Sections 376, 342 of IPC. 4. Heard Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the complaint initially lodged against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 109, 143, 147, 370, 366 read with Section 149 of IPC. Later, offences under Sections 370A, 376 and 342 of IPC were included based on the statement of victim. However, in the chargesheet, the victim has not arraigned as witness. In the absence of victim as a witness, it cannot be said that the alleged offence had taken place and the police have recorded her statement. Later, offences under Sections 370A, 376 and 342 of IPC were included based on the statement of victim. However, in the chargesheet, the victim has not arraigned as witness. In the absence of victim as a witness, it cannot be said that the alleged offence had taken place and the police have recorded her statement. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State vehemently opposed the petition submitting that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. They have clearly stated that the petitioner was forcibly taking/abducting her and informed the complainant in that regard. Such being the fact, it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents. The charge sheet averments and also column No.14 of the said charge sheet clearly disclose that the victim has not been arraigned as witness in the list. 8. The charge sheet averments disclose that C.W.8 and 9 are the eyewitnesses to the said abduction. They have stated in their statements that the victim was going along with the petitioner on motorcycle. The victim being the married woman and if she had really been abducted, she would have raised alarm or grab the attention of C.W.8 and 9 to that effect. However, no such averments are noticed in their statements. Therefore, it is not appropriate to act upon the statements of the so-called eyewitnesses and invoke the provisions under Section 370A of IPC. Be that as it may, on perusal of the charge sheet material, it would not be sufficient to invoke any of the provisions as stated in it and the ingredients of such provisions are not attracted on careful reading of the complaint in its entirety. It is emphasized here that the investigating officer deliberately and intentionally committed illegality in not citing the victim as a charge sheet witness in order to facilitate the petitioner to avail such benefit. In a case of rape, if the victim is not arraigned as a witness, the case loses its significance. In a case of rape or atrocity against woman, the victim must be cited as a witness. In a case of rape, if the victim is not arraigned as a witness, the case loses its significance. In a case of rape or atrocity against woman, the victim must be cited as a witness. Having said thus, in the absence of victim as a witness to the proceedings, it would not be appropriate to ask the petitioner to face the trial. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise to inherent jurisdiction to avoid abuse of process of law. 9. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The Criminal Petition is allowed. II. The proceedings in Charge Sheet No.25/2016 dated 25.07.2016 arising out of Crime No.57/2016 registered by the Mehakar Police Station, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Bhalki against the petitioner are quashed. III. The Superintendent of Police, Bidar is directed to take necessary steps or action against the erring officer in not arraigning the victim as witness to the case. IV. The registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police for appropriate action.