LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-224

BALARAM BALAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On August 31, 2015
Balaram Balai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner Balaram Balai, is aggrieved by order dated 20/06/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.86/2015 framing charges for offence under Sections 363 & 366 of the IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that complainant Sabaji lodged a report at Police Station Jharda that one year prior to registration of the FIR, he had fixed the marriage of his daughter Jassubai with the accused. However, marriage was not solemnized since his daughter was only sixteen years of age. On 05/12/2014, the applicant came to the house of the complainant and thereafter on the pretext to answer the call of nature, the prosecutrix left her parental home and did not return. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Jharda at crime No.264/2014 for offence under Section 363 and 366 of the IPC. After the registration of the FIR the investigation was set in motion, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., spot map was drawn, scholar register in regard to the age of the prosecutrix was seized, on 19/12/2014 the prosecutrix was produced at the police station by the applicant. She was sent for medical examination and statements of the prosecutrix was also recorded u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the applicant was arrested and after completing the necessary and mandatory formalities, a charge-sheet under Sections 363 & 366 was filed against the applicant Balaram, the petitioner in the present case. He was duly charged and committed his trial and hence the present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the statements recorded u/S 164 of the Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that she was only 19 years of age and she has also so deposed in Court. She has also admitted that she had married the applicant on consent at Ganesh Temple in Ujjain and at present also she was living with him in lodge and she has nothing to complain, whereas, the disgruntled father has filed the missing person report. Counsel further submitted that the FIR was delayed by seven days and the incident took place on 05/12/2014 and the FIR was filed on 12/12/2014 and false case has been reported.