R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.2009, Mannu Singh had filed a report at Police Station Sikandra, Dausa, wherein he claimed that his daughter Meenu came to Sikandra Choraha for the purpose of buying few things. At that time an Indica car came in which Jitendra alias Babli was inside along with few other people. These people kidnapped his daughter and went i towards Jaipur. This incident was seen by Kalu and Man Singh, who informed him over the phone. He further claimed that not only Jitendra but even other members of his family are involved in this case. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR No. 5/2009 was chalked out for offences under Sections 363, 366, 120- B IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, the police filed a challan for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC. Vide order dated 12.11.2009, the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Umesh Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has totally ignored the statement given by the prosecutrix Meenu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, she had clearly claimed that her age was 171/2 years. She has further claimed that she and Jitendra had developed intimate relationship. When her family members came to know of this fact, they married her to one Lokesh with whom she stayed for two months. However, when she told about the fact of her intimate relationship with Jitendra, her husband left her at her parental place. She further claimed that out of her own volition she had gone with Jitendra. She further stated that he had never committed rape upon her. According to the learned counsel, the prosecutrix had gone out of her own volition and had physical relationship with Jitendra with her own consent. The learned counsel has also contended that according to the medical evidence, Meenu is an adult. Thus, she was major enough to give consent to have physical relationship with Jitendra. Therefore, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. Therefore, offences under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC are not made out. As far as Kamlesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar, petitioner No.2 & 3, are concerned, he has contended that although the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has claimed that both these persons had helped Jitendra in taking her away, but in the statement under Section 164, Cr.PC., she is absolutely silent on this point. Therefore, no offence under Section 120-B IPC is made out. Yet the learned Judge has framed charges against these two petitioners for offence under Section 120-B IPC.;