NAUSHAD ALIAS TANVECR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .C. Agarwal, J. Parcha filed by Mohd. Aslam Ansari and vakalatnama filed by Sri Vikrant Pandey on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists contended that police submitted final report twice, but after considering the material available in the case diary and in the affidavits, the Magistrate passed the summoning order under section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. It was submitted that in the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix claimed herself to be major and also stated that she married with the revisionist no.1 out of her own sweet will and on this ground, the final report was submitted by the police. The further submission is that after the girl was given in the supurdgi of her mother, she has changed her version and filed an affidavit stating therein that she was kidnapped and raped against her will.