Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the material on record.
(2.) The revisionist Guddan and five others have preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 143 of 2012 (State Vs. Guddan and others) under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar by which the discharge application moved by the revisionists was rejected.
(3.) Brief facts which give rise to the revision are that an FIR was lodged on 13.9.2011 with the allegation that the informant, Sunder was residing along with his family in a hut behind New Baans Sector-15 and on 11.9.2011 the informant and his wife had gone to do labour and after finishing work when they returned, they found that his minor daughter aged about 14 years was missing. It is alleged by the witness that her minor daughter aged about 14 years was enticed away by the revisionists. The investigating officer after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC. During trial the application for discharge was moved with the submission that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that she had not been enticed away by any of the accused person and no offence is made out against the revisionists. In the ossification test report, she was found 18 years old. The victim had left her house on her own choice in the company of the revisionist no. 1 as she wanted to get marry with accused, Guddan. The discharge application moved by the revisionist was rejected which is under challenge in the present revision.;