Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) BOTH these revision petitions arises out of a common order, hence are decided by this common order. For convenience the facts are taken from SB Cr. Revision Petition No. 763/2009.
(2.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur Head Quarter at Deeg in Sessions Case No. 36/2007 on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Sections 376 sub -clause (2)(g) and 114 IPC. The short facts of the case are that complainant lodged a First Information Report No. 282/2006 on 2.7.2006 for kidnapping of her daughter Pooja. During investigation, Pooja was recovered, her statements has been recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, charge -sheet has been filed against accused Jaikam for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376, 384 and 386 IPC and he has been charged for the same. During trial after examination of some of the witnesses including, Pooja, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. Hence these petitions.
(3.) THE contention of the present petitioners is that court below has committed serious error in passing the impugned order. The present petitioners have not been named in the First Information Report and first statement of Pooja recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also additional statement recorded twice of the prosecutrix, the date of the incident is 4.12.2005 after that Pooja has been recovered by her parents but at that time, nothing has been stated to the parents and after considerable delay when again Pooja was found missing, FIR has been lodged on 2.7.2006 in which suspicion has been shown on Shukbeer, Monu and Shameem, present petitioners have not been named in the First Information Report and statements during investigation, in court statements she has malafidely improved her version and court below has not considered the facts of the case in right perspective and impugned order is per verse and liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, the contention of the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. In the statements before Court specific allegations have been lodged against the present petitioners and no interference is needed.;