S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) These two revisions are preferred against the same order dated 9.5.1975, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, discharging the non-petitioners Nos, 1, 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 368, read with Section 511, I. P. C.
(2.) The facts according to the prosecution are that on the night of 31.5.1972 Mst. Raju was sleeping in the shop of her father. Her husband, non-petitioner No. 1 Srilal along with his two brothers came there and tried to abduct her. She was dragged and in the process received some minor injuries. A report was lodged and a challan was put up in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, No. 2 Bikaner, who after examining the two witnesses, committed the accused to the court of Sessions to stand trial under Section 366, read with Section 511, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the charge was groundless, and discharged them. It was an admitted fact that Mst. Raju was the legally wedded wife of Srilal. Under the circumstances, there could possibly be no offence under Section 366, in the absence of any other circumstance. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the case of Pirmohammad Kukaji, Appellant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (A. I. R. 1960 Madhya Pradesh 24) ; and also Manna Lal v. State of Rajasthan (R. L. W. 1966, Vol. XVII, Page-40) , wherein, it has been held that the husband and his associates could not be convicted under Section 366/511, for attempting to take away the wife forcibly.
(3.) It may further be stated that in any case, there is no evidence to indicate that the non-petitioners wanted to take away Mst. Raju with any of the intentions referred to under Sections 364, 365 and 366. In the absence of any such intention or knowledge, no offence, whatsoever, could be made out against the non-petitioners.;