Criminal Revision No.574 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1.Criminal Revision No.574 of 2009 Lalli Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2.Criminal Revision No.935 of 2009 Hanuman ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:1.9.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for petitioner Lalli Devi. Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate for petitioner Hanuman. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, AAG, Haryana with Mr.B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the complainant. L.N.Mittal, J. (Oral): By this common order, I am disposing of two Criminal Revisions i.e. CRR No.574 of 2009 filed by Lalli Devi and CRR No.935 of 2009 filed by Hanuman, both assailing the order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, thereby allowing the prosecution application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short “Cr.P.C.”) and summoning the petitioners Lalli Devi and Hanuman as additional accused to face trial alongwith Sahi Ram and Sube Singh, Criminal Revision No.574 of 2009 2 who were challaned by the police in case FIR No.143 dated 22.8.2008 under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Kasola. According to the FIR lodged by Bir Singh, his sister Mosami alias Tima was enticed away by Sube Singh at midnight intervening 18/19.8.2008. The complainant on inquiries made from Lalli Devi-petitioner learnt that Sube Singh had enticed away the complainant's sister and there was also hand of petitioner Lalli Devi in the said kidnapping. In supplementary statement, the complainant alleged that he had got up at midnight for passing urine and saw Hanuman petitioner standing in front of his house. Hanuman told that Tima had been talking to Sube Singh on the mobile telephone of Hanuman and that Sube Singh had asked Tima on telephone to come towards bus stand. Tima was sleeping in the house of Lalli Devi petitioner, who told that Tima used to talk with Sube Singh on telephone of Sahi Ram. After investigation, the police presented challan for prosecution Sahi Ram and Sube Singh only and the petitioners were found innocent. After the examination-in-chief of Bir Singh complainant as PW1 vide statement (Annexure P2), prosecution filed application under section 319 Cr.PC. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court by impugned order dated 6.1.2009 and both the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Criminal Revision No.574 of 2009 3 Mosami alias Tima has since been recovered. Her statement has been recorded on 8.6.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rewari under section 164 Cr.PC. She stated her age as 18½ years approximately at the time of making statement. She deposed that on 18.8.2008, she had a quarrel with her brother Bir Singh complainant, who threatened her that either she would remain alive or he would remain alive till 25.8.2008. Accordingly, on account of fear of her brother, she left the home on that very day and at about 9 P.M. she took lift in a truck on Jaipur Highway. She went to the house of truck driver Sonu at Jammu and worked as domestic help there for 4-5 months, as his wife was ill. Thereafter, Sonu got her married with Ravinder driver with her own consent on 7.4.2009 in court at Ajmer and since then she was residing with Ravinder as his wife in his house at Kishangarh. She also added that her brother Bir Singh complainant had lodged false case against Sube Singh and Sahi Ram on account of old enmity with them. She stated that she left the house voluntarily and also married with Ravinder voluntarily. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of the aforesaid statement made by Mosami alias Tima, no case is made out for proceeding against the petitioners. It was also contended that the petitioner Hanuman was not even named in the FIR and there was only vague allegation against Lalli Devi petitioner that she was also cooperating in enticing away Mosami alias Tima. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence. Criminal Revision No.574 of 2009 4 However, there is no material on record to substantiate the contention. In addition thereto, age of the prosecutrix becomes immaterial and irrelevant in view of the statement made by her under Section 164 Cr.PC that she had voluntarily left the house on account of her quarrel with her brother Bir Singh complainant, who had also threatened her. In view of the aforesaid, both the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari is set aside and the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 Cr.PC stands dismissed. (L.N.Mittal) 1.9.2009 Judge AS