BISWANATH GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of 24 Paragons by which he directed a further enquiry into a complaint by one Pramatha Nath Mandal of an offence tinder Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner before us. The trying Magistrate held that there was no sufficient ground for committing the petitioner to the court of Session and in that view discharged him under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon an application under Sections 435 and 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed a further enquiry which is challenged in the Rule before us.

(2.) The facts are simple, Pramatha Nath Mandal the father of a girl named Champarani, resides at 117 Gopal Lal Thakur Road, Baranagore. On the 1st of May, 1955, at about 1-30 P.M. he awoke from his midday siesta and found that his daughter, aged according to him about 16 or 17 years, was missing and that she had taken a sum of Rs. 120/-with her. He suspected that the girl had been taken away by the petitioner before us, because sometime back he had expressed a desire to marry the girl. On the same day at about 7-30 P.M. Pramatha Nath Mandal lodged an information at the Baranagore police station. On the 5th of May following, the petitioner and the girl were produced at the Chitpur police station by one Kanai Lal Mukherjee, living at 8/1 Sarbamangala Lane, Baranagore, Thereafter the girl was produced in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore who handed her over to her father upon his executing a bond. The petitioner was placed on his trial on a charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It appears that after the case had made some progress something happened and the father informed the learned Magistrate that he would be prepared to give his daughter in marriage to the petitioner and was not desirous of proceeding with the case. The police was willing to help him and the Court Inspector recommended withdrawal of the case. The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Barack-pore concurred and the Additional Superintendent of Police, North, 24 Parganas, actually ordered withdrawal of the case. The learned trying Magistrate, however, did not permit a withdrawal and proceeded with the trial. At the end of it, however, he held that there was no reliable evidence that the girl was below 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence, nor any reliable evidence that the petitioner had kidnapped her with the intention of marrying her or having sexual intercourse with her. In that view, he discharged the petitioner, as I have already stated.