IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 189 of 2009 Ajeet Panwar. …..…Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondent. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S. S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. For the reasons stated, delay condonation application no. 1281 of 2009 is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned. With the consent of both the parties, this revision is being finally heard and decided at the admission stage. By way of present revision, revisionist is assailing the order dated 22.07.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge Uttarkashi, in sessions trial no. 8 of 2009 (State Vs. Vikas Semwal) under section 366 and 120B IPC, discharging the accused under section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist herein has lodged an First Information Report under section 366, 120B IPC against accused saying that accused has abducted his legally wedded wife – Smt. Poonam Panwar. 2 After investigation chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Officer. Trial was committed to the court of Sessions Judge Uttarkashi by the Magistrate concerned. Learned Sessions Judge by placing reliance on the statements of Smt. Poonam Panwar, recorded under section 164 of the Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that as per the statements of Smt. Poonam Panwar, she herself went with the accused – Vikas Semwal who was known to her since before. She has further made statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was being troubled and tortured by her husband and in-laws, hence, to get rid of the tension and bad behaviour of the husband and in-laws she went herself with Vikas Semwal. Section 227 of the Code reads as under: “227. Discharge – If, upon consideration of record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing.” From the perusal of the provisions of section 227 (supra) if learned Sessions Judge (i) upon consideration of record of the case; and (ii) documents submitted therewith; and (iii) after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 3 Here in the present case learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the statements of Smt. Poonam Panwar recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., and rightly held that no case under section 366 and 120B IPC is made out against Vikas Semwal and he is liable to be discharged. Otherwise also in view of the statement of Smt. Poonam Panwar there can be no conviction, hence, keeping the trial alive would amount to abuse of process of law. Learned Sessions Judge has committed no jurisdictional or legal error while passing the impugned order. Hence, Revision is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 01.12.2009 SKS