JEERAJ ALIAS VIJAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 21. 9. 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 17, Bulandshahar in ST No. 418/94 under Sections 363, 376, I. P. C. Case Crime No. 48/92 of P. S. Narora, District Bulandshahar.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the applicants are accused in the aforesaid session trial the proceedings of which started on the basis of a F. I. R. lodged by Smt. Surjo at Police Station Narora, District Bulandshahar on 5. 5. 1992 against the accused-applicants and it was stated therein that she was resident of Village Tejpur, District Aligarh. On 24. 4. 1992, she had gone to the house of her sister-in-law (Nanand) at Village Dhakangla P. S. Narora, District Bulandshahar to perform the rite of Bhat. Her daughter Km. Sunita aged about 15 years and her son Puranmal etc. had also accompanied her. THE mar riage party of Mahipal son of her sister-in-law went to Badaun on 25. 4. 1992. THE male members of the family went in that Barat and the ladies stayed in the house. On 26. 4. 1992, the accused Jeeraj son of Kishori Lal who had come from a village Udaipur P. S. Anoopshahar to attend the marriage but had not gone with the Barat, kidnaped Km. Sunita at about 10 A. M. Km. Gita daughter of Mr. Rajendra had seen Jeeraj taking Km. Sunita with him. When the Barat returned back, Smt. Surjo narrated this incident before her son and other relations. THEn her son and other relations tried to search Km. Sunita. On 5. 5. 1992, Km. Sunita and Jeeraj and his father Kishori Lal were seen going to Anoopshahar, and on seeing the above family members of Km. Sunita, they ran away towards their village. Despite search, they could not be found. THEn Smt. Surjo went to the police station and lodged the report. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case under Section 363 and 366, I. P. C. After recovery of Km. Sunita, on the basis of her statement the charge under Section 376,i. P. C. was added in the case. Her medical examination was also conducted in which no injury was found either on her body or on her private parts and she was found to be habitual to intercourse. Her X-ray was performed to ascertain her age and her age was assessed to be 19 years. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. in which she stated that she had willingly gone with the accused-applicant Jeeraj @ Vijai and performed court marriage with him and resided with him and she also had two months' pregnancy.