ASHOK GOYDANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 24.8.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jodhpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 1277 of 2001 whereby the Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 363 IPC. Aggrieved by the order framing charge, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 30.5.2005, non-petitioner No. 2 submitted a written report to G.R.R Police Station, Jodhpur, inter alia, alleging therein that on 29.5.2001 at 8.15 A.M., he came to Jodhpur by train, Mandore, Express from Delhi alongwith his son Shubham Mehra aged 9 years and he stayed in retiring room No. 9 at Railway Station, Jodhpur. It was alleged that at about 9.15 A.M., petitioner came in the retiring room and told that his son Subham is very nice in study and, therefore, he advised him (complainant) to pursue the study of his son at Chennai. However, complainant went to take cold drinks from a stall at railway platform and when he returned, he found Shubham and the petitioner missing. On this report, police investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report. However, the Trial Court took cognizance of offence against the petitioner. Statement of minor Shubham was recorded by the police on 29.6.2001. He clearly stated in his statement that he has been pursuing his study in Chennai for two years; in the month of Feb., there was a function of marriage of Kusum at that time his father non-petitioner No. 2 forcibly took him to the function and thereafter to Jodhpur and from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer; his father wanted that he should study in a school at Jaisalmer but he did not agree, thereafter, he came alongwith his father to Jodhpur. He stayed for a month at Jodhpur and thereafter,' he came alongwith is maternal uncle, the petitioner from Jodhpur to Chennai. He further stated that neither he went to Jodhpur nor was kidnapped by his maternal uncle. He has been pursuing his study at Chennai and residing with his mother and maternal uncle. He categorically stated that he is not willing to live with his father, on the contrary, expressed his desire to live with his mother at Chennai and pursue his study there. The Trial Court framed the charges on the statement of non-petitioner No. 2 and some witnesses.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned I have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court particularly the statement of minor Shubham. There is no evidence that Shubham was kidnapped from lawful guardianship of non-petitioner No. 2. On the contrary, the statement of Shubham goes to show that he has been residing at Chennai with his mother and pursuing his study.