PUSHPA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.T. No. 3 of 2002 (old S.T. No. 55 of 2000) (State v. Manoj @ Chini) under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 297 of 2000, Police Station Sipari Bazar, Jhansi was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi. An application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before that court by the revisionist. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and he disposed it of on 3.10.2002 and rejected the same. Hence the revision.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged with the police against one Manoj @ Chini which was registered at the police station at Case No. 297 of 2000 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. In the F.I.R. the complainant Smt. Ram Pyari had alleged that the accused Manoj @ Chini had enticed away her minor daughter Km. Pushpa. The age of Pushpa has been disclosed in the F.I.R. as 14 years. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation the girl was recovered. She was medically examined and her age was found to be 18 - 19 years. She was produced before the Magistrate on 2.6.2000 and on the same day she was examined under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure In her statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecutrix has said that on the relevant date she had met Manoj @ Chini and requested him that he should take her away with him from her home. Thereupon Manoj took her to Kanpur where they stayed in a hotel. She has further stated that she had sexual intercourse with Manoj of her sweet will. She also stated before the learned Magistrate that she had gone along with Manoj of her free will and that she wanted to marry him. She has further said that her parents and parents of Manoj were ready to get them married. On the next date i.e. on 3.6.2000 the prosecutrix, who is the revisionist herein, moved an application before the learned Magistrate who had examined her under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer that she should be further examined by him under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure because on the previous date she did not disclose the entire story to the Magistrate. After hearing the revisionist the learned Magistrate rejected her application. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection, Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 2000 was filed before this Court. After hearing both the parties this Court vide its order dated 10.7.2000 dismissed the revision holding that there was no question of recording a second statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure After investigation of the case the matter culminated into a charge sheet against Manoj @ Chini. Charges were framed against the accused. The revisionist was examined by the learned trial court under Section 231 Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has added the names of all the private opposite parties alleging that they were involved in the alleged offence. Her examination-in-chief was completed and thereafter she was partly cross examined from the side of the sole accused i.e. Manoj @ Chini. Thereafter an application 13-B was moved before the learned lower court under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has prayed that all the private opposite parties should be summoned to stand trial along with the charge sheeted accused Manoj. As mentioned above after hearing the revisionist, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application.

(3.) This case was listed for hearing on 27.5.2010. On that date learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. were present but no one was present from the side of opposite party Nos. 2 to 9. Arguments were heard in detail which were advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.