Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The revisionist, Sachin @ Sachinder @ Satyendra has preferred this revision against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2013 passed by Ist Additional District Judge (Ex-Cadre), Kushi Nagar, Padrauna, in S.T. No. 208/2012 (State v. Aslam and others) under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Hata, District Kushi Nagar whereby the discharge application of revisionist has been rejected.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision is that an FIR has been lodged by the informant, Sri Janardan Yadav on 31.12.2011 as Case Crime No. 1099 of 2011 under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Hata, District Kushi Nagar alleging therein that on 26.12.2011 his daughter namely Sindhu aged about 16 years was gone to the school of village and when she was not returned from the school till evening, it is brought to the notice that she has been misguided by accused on account of which she fled away with the co-accused Ram Niwas. Thereafter co-accused Ram Niwas and the alleged victim Sindhu have filed Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2012 (Ram Niwas v. State of U.P.) in which the victim, Sindhu claims to have voluntarily married with Ram Niwas out of her own sweet will and is living with him without any coercion and compulsion, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.6.2012 passed by this court staying the arrest of the petitioner till disposal of the proceedings before the concerned CJM.
(3.) After investigation charge sheet dated 21.9.2012 was submitted against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC by the police. Revisionist has moved the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge on the ground that no offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B IPC is disclosed and in absence of necessary ingredients, no offence is made out even if entire prosecution evidence is taken at its face value. The statement of alleged victim, Sindhu has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated to live with her husband out of her own sweet will. Learned Additional District Sessions Judge after hearing the application rejected the application on 4.1.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has filed this revision.;