drp {1} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISIONI APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2011 1. Swami Baban Wagh APPLICANTS Age-19 years, Occ-Agriculturist 2. Sau.Rajashree Swami Wagh Age-18 years, Occ-Household Bot R/o Balaji Nagar, Ahmednagar VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Inspector, Shirdi Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar ....... Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for the applicants Mr.V.D.Rakh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. drp {2} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 2. By the present revision u/s 401 r/w 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants, original accused No.4 and 5 in Sessions Case No.30/2010, pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, have questioned the correctness of the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon below application Exhibit-13 thereby rejecting the application for discharge filed by the present applicants. 3. It appears that on the complaint of one Ravindra, an offence was registered at Crime No.22/2010 with Shirdi police station for an offence punishable u/s 363, 365, 366A and 376 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants and three others. It was alleged in the complaint that the daughter of the complainant (for the safety of the prosecutorix her name is not disclosed in this judgment), had eloped with one Ganesh since 02.02.2010. On receipt of certain information the complainant, along with police, had been to hotel Amar Palace at Kada, where the daughter of the complainant was found in the company of drp {3} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 accused Ganesh. They were taken in custody and thereafter the compliant was lodged pursuant to which offence at Crime No. 22/2010 was registered. It further appears that during the course of investigation, statement of the daughter of the complainant, so also statements of the manager and owner of hotel Amar Palace were recorded. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Shirdi and on committal of the trial, the case is numbered as Sessions Case No.30/2010. It appears that the present applicants have filed application for discharge u/s 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came to be rejected, vide order dated 03.01.2011, which is impugned in the present revision application. 4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for applicants as well as learned APP taken me through the entire record. It is brought to my notice that from 02.02.2010 till 06.02.2010, for about four days, daughter of the complainant stayed with accused Ganesh in Hotel Amar Palace and the other accused used to visit them in the said hotel. It appears from the statement of the owner of the said hotel that one boy and one girl drp {4} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 stayed in his hotel. Statement of the manager of the said hotel discloses that during the stay of the said boy and said girl, for four days, accused No.2 and 3 used to visit them. The main emphasis of the prosecution is on the statement of the daughter of the complainant, recorded during the investigation. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for applicant and learned APP read over the entire statement of the victim. The statement discloses that in the afternoon of 03.02.2010, present applicants and two others had brought tifin in the room where she stayed with accused Ganesh, they took lunch and in the evening all the four had left the room. This is the only circumstance, which relates to the present applicants in the entire statement of the victim. 5. So far as charge against the present applicants is concerned, they are charged for an offence punishable u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code. For clarity, it may be useful to reproduce the text of section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus - “366A Procuration of minor girl- Whoever, by any means drp {5} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 6. Bare reading of the statements of owner and manager of the said hotel indicates that they are of no avail to the prosecution, as there is nothing incriminating in the statements against the present applicants. The statement of the victim even if taken as it is it does not indicate that the applicants have in any manner induced her. Once ingredients of inducement are not established, then further ingredients of the section does not survive. Even if the statement of the victim is taken as it is, it would not constitute an offence punishable u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Considering this aspect, merely on the basis of the statements charge cannot be framed against the applicant for which they are charged. 7. For the above discussion, the revision application succeeds. The applicants are discharged from the Sessions Case drp {6} Cri. Revision No.20/2011 No.30/2010 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. No costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/crirev20-11