KANTA BHATNAGAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the the parties. Admit. Issue notice.
(2.) MR . Vimal Mathur accepts notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and not objected to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition has been heard for final disposal today. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 2 -4 -1986 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalore by which it was ordered that the complaint under Section 193 IPC may be filed in the court against petitioner Leela.
(3.) THE facts of the case are that on 11 -6 -1984 a report was filed by Raju Singh, father of petitioner Leela that she has been abducted by Parbat Singh and Jabar Singh. A case was registered under sections 363 and 366, IPC against these two persons. On 25 -6 -1984 Leela was recovered after 17 days. She was entrusted to her father on 2 -7 -1984. On 2 -7 -1984 she was produced before the Magistrate for her statement under section 164 Cr. PC where she has supported the prosecution case about her being taken by Prabat Singh and Jabar singh and the later marrying her against her Will. When she was examined at the trial she gave the statement that she had gone with Parbat Singh of her own accord and no force was used and that she had married Parbat Singh. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused in that criminal case but passed the impugned order for proceeding under Section 193 IPC on the ground that Leela has given statement at the trial which is contradictory to her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC.;