AMAR SARAN, R.N.MISRA, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the peti ­tioners, Sri P.P.S. Rathore, Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties agree that Km. Priti has been recovered by the police and statement has to be re ­corded. In the counter affidavit filed by the complainant, the High School certificate of the victim is annexed, which shows her date of birth to be 20.8.1993. Therefore, Km. Priti was only about 15 years and a few months in age on the date of alleged ab ­duction. Learned Counsel for the petition ­ers has relied on paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of a decision of the Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 (SC) 942 for contend ­ing that if girl voluntarily leaves her home, even if she is minor, accused cannot be held liable for the same. It is significant that in that case it has been observed that no active part was played by the accused, nor was any material to show that he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to leave her minor guardianship. In the present case, there is an allegation in the F.I.R. that on 14.2.2009 when Km. Priti reached near the house of Nekram, then the petitioners first deceived her saying that her mother was ill and admitted in Kalawati hospital and then they persuaded her to sit in a Maruti van and that armed persons were already sitting in the Maurti van from before and then abducted the victim. It cannot be said that this is a case where no active part was assigned to the accused. Moreover, this is the initial stage of investigation and the decision of Apex Court relates to an appeal after conviction.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed, wherein some affidavit of the girl has been annexed, where she states that she claims to have voluntarily gone away. We do not think that at this stage, a defence document can be of much help. Therefore, there is no force in this petition. It is dismissed.;