IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DAUJI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & Anr. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.817 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated July 21, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2008 by which the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. Filed by the petitioner was rejected. Date of Order : January 7, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. D.K.Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. L.L.Gupta for the respondent. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Dauji Ram, against the order dated July 21, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2008 by which the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant petitioner lodged first information report with the allegation that his daughter namely, Ashwan @ Mamta was abducted by one Ramesh alongwith three other persons with the aid of Ramveer who is constable in the same Police Station and when the fact of abduction came into the knowledge of the petitioner, he followed the jeep in which his daughter was abducted. When the petitioner following the jeep the accused left her daughter in the way and when the petitioner asked her daughter she stated that Ramesh alongwith three other persons abducted her and compelled her to marry with him. Ramveer constable informed Ramesh over Mobile that the family members of prosecutrix are following them, accused Ramesh and others left the prosecutrix in the way. Ramveer is Police constable therefore the investigating officer with the intention to help Ramveer did not get the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.c. before the Magistrate. The Magistrate rejected the application filed by the complainant for recording statement of his daughter under section 164 Cr.P.C. This order was challenged before this Court and this Court while allowing the misc. petition directed the Magistrate to record the statement of the prosecutrix under section `164 Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. name of Ramveer constable is specifically mentioned, but even then the investigating agency did not file challan against Ramveer. During the course of trial PW.1 Dauji Ram, PW.2 Kumari Mamta and PW.3 Ganga Devi specifically taken the name of Ramveer as one of assailant. In these circumstances the petitioner filed application under section 319 Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected by the trial court. Hence this revision petition was preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Dinesh Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is specific allegation against Ramveer in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix. PW.1 Dauji Ram, PW.2 Kumari Mamta and PW.3 Ganga Devi specifically taken the name of Ramveer as one of assailant in their statements recorded by the trial court, but the trial court rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against Ramveer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondent Mr. L.L.Gupta and Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments of Mr. Garg and argued that the trial court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. name of Ramveer constable is specifically mentioned and during trial in the statements of PW.1 Dauji Ram, PW.2 Kumari Mamta and PW.3 Ganga Devi, the name of Ramveer is taken as one of assailant, the order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. 5. For these reasons I set aside the order dated July 21, 2008 of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 59 of2008 but at the same time I direct the trial court to rehear the matter and pass a fresh order after considering the arguments of both the parties, within 15 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. This revisison petition is disposed of accordingly. As the main petition has been disposed, the stay applciation also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/