- (1.) This criminal revision under Sections 401 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises out of order dated 2nd February, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur, in Sessions Trial No.XXVI/November/2011, by which learned Judge of the court below refused to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case.
(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.2 lodged written complaint against the petitioner and other co -accused persons and the same was treated as Kotwali Police Station Case No.147 of 1991 dated 16th July, 1991 under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet on 4th May, 1992 against the present petitioner and other co -accused persons. The petitioner filed an application before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, for discharge from the criminal case and learned Sessions Judge refused to discharge the petitioner from the said criminal case. Mr. Rajib Basu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the materials collected by the investigating agency do not indicate that the petitioner made any inducement for taking away the victim girl from the custody of the lawful guardian that is the opposite party no.2. Mr. Basu has referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to urge before this Court that no offence is made out on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Basu has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Thakorlal D. Vadgama V. The State of Gujarat, 1973 2 SCC 413 in support of his contention that no offence will be made out as defined in Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, if the minor victim leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise or offer of inducement on the part of the accused persons. The gist of the submission of Mr. Basu is that the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient materials before the learned Trial Court for the purpose of making out prima facie offence under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and as such, the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
(3.) None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of service of notice as reflected from the contents of the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner.;