SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner accused Nosad Khan @ Sonu has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 17.9.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 13/2016 whereby, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C.
(2.) No-one has appeared to oppose the revision on behalf of the respondent No. 2 despite service.
(3.) Facts in brief:- The respondent No. 2 Dilip Khan lodged a report at the P.S. Mahamandir on 1.2.2016 alleging inter alia that the accused petitioner kidnapped his minor daughter Sushri 'R' on 31.1.2016 at about 2 O'clock and took her away to the village Sayla with the intention of establishing sexual relations with her. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 40/2016 was registered at the P.S. Mahamandir for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. The victim was traced out on the very day of filing of the report. Her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day wherein she stated that the petitioner Nosad used to visit her aunt's house which was located in the neighbourhood for the last 4 to 5 months and thus, she knew him. On 31.1.2016 she had gone to Reliance Fresh Store for purchasing vegetables. She called Nosad Khan on mobile and told him that she was desirous of living with him and thus, he should come and take her away. On this, Nosad Khan came to the Krishi mandi on foot. From there, they voluntarily boarded a local city bus and went to the Bus Stand from where they took another bus and reached to Nosad Khan's village at about 8.30 PM. At that time, nobody was present in his house. Both of them took food and then went to sleep. Nosad did not commit any untoward act with her. She clearly expressed that she was desirous of marrying Nosad Khan but was afraid of her family members. Nosad had provided her a mobile phone which she had returned to him. The story appears to have taken a turn when the victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 3.2.2016. In such statement, the victim stated that she had gone to Reliance Fresh Store on 31.1.2016 at about 4 O'clock. There, a boy named Sonu (Nosad) met her. He gave her some intoxicant mixed in water which she consumed and became unconscious. The accused took her to some village and locked her inside a room. The Police came there and saved her. She categorically stated that she was unable to recall the exact scene and the manner in which, Sonu took her to his village. Based on these aspertions made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. The learned trial court framed charge against the petitioner in the same terms by the impugned order dated 17.9.2016 which is assailed in the instant revision. ;