ROHIT NAMDEV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by Special Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in Spl.S.T.78/2013, whereby the charges under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 11(6) read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) In short the prosecution case is that Ghasiram Sharma has lodged a report that his daughter studying in B.Sc. second year did not return from the college. He searched her, but could not trace his daughter. Missing report No.63/13 was recorded. It was found that daughter of the complainant has been abducted by Rohit Namdev. The case was registered. During investigation, the daughter of the complainant was recovered. Her statement was recorded. She stated that Rohit Namdev used to talk with her and asked her to marry. On 30.9.13 Rohit called her in his room and persuaded her to accompany him. Thereafter, Rohit took her to Sherpura and kept her in a room. Thereafter, he took her to Bhopal and then to Indore and kept her. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Section 11(6) read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has not abducted the victim. In fact, there was love affairs between the petitioner and the victim and the victim on her own will has gone with the petitioner and performed marriage on 4.10.13. It is further submitted that date of birth of the victim is 10.4.1993 mentioned in the mark-sheets of 10th, 12th and B.Sc. while on the basis of the mark-sheet of a private school, in which the date of birth of the victim has been shown as 4.8.1997, the victim has been held to be minor. It is further stated that father of the victim himself mentioned the age of the victim as 20 years in his report. The victim remained for about 18 days with the petitioner and never complained to anybody, therefore, prima facie no charge is made out against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashing of the charges.