Arunachalam, J. - (1.) On a private complaint instituted by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, No.II, Trichirapalli, the said Magistrate chose to take the case on file against the respondents for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sec.363 I.P.C. In the private complaint it was alleged by the petitioner, that on 21.12.1984, Muthukannu, who was a minor girl was kidnapped by the respondents herein. The petitioner having failed in her attempts to trace her daughter Muthukannu preferred a complaint on 25.12.1984 at the Thuvarankurichi Police Station against the respondents. Her complaint was registered as Crime No.239 of 1984 under Sec.363 I.P.C. Later, the petitioner was informed that the victim girl had been detained at the vigilance home, Tiruchirapalli. Thereafter, the petitioner took custody of her minor daughter Muthukannu. After completing investigation in Crime No.239 of 1984, the Thuvarankurichi police referred the case as mistake of fact, on 21.6.1984 and served the referred notice on the petitioner. It was only thereafter that the petitioner instituted the present private complaint before the trial Magistrate. After P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined, charged were framed against the respondents for an offence under Sec.363 I.P.C. After the charge was framed, P.W.7, the Radiologist was examined and the respondents were also questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1, while the victim girl chose to depose as P.W.2. The victim has stated in her evidence that she was abducted by the first respondent, with intent to compel her to marry him, in order that she may be forced to have illicit intercourse on such a promise of marriage. After P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate to commit the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions, since the evidence of P.W.2 disclosed an offence punishable under Secion 366 I.P.C., which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, holding that no mention about the offence under Sec.366 I.P.C. was made in the complaint or in the sworn statement of the petitioner. It was also observed by the Magistrate that the witness had spoken now an improved version without any supportive version by any other witness. Further, there was no whisper about an offence under Sec.366 I.P.C. by the counsel at the time of framing of charges. The learned Magistrate also relied on the investigation report by the police which revealed a totally different version and therefore, according to the trial Magistrate, at that stage, there was no substantial evidence to frame a charge under Sec.366 I.P.C. to commit the accused under Sec.323 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.4 of 1987 before the second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision concurring with the view expressed by the Trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge went in to the question of acceptability or otherwise of the evidence of P.W.2, while considering the need for invoking the provisions under Sec.323 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court also pointed out, that either in the complaint or in the sworn statement an offence under Sec.366 I.P.C. was not disclosed.
(3.) Challenging the orders of both the Courts below, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to have those orders set aside on the ground that there has been a failure of justice.;