1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Babu Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.998/2009) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Order :- 18th November, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Dr.Mahesh Sharma, for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.04.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast Track), Kota, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341 & 365/34 IPC. Dr. Mahesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that according to Hemraj, the complainant, he had voluntarily accompanied the petitioners. Therefore, the offence under Section 365 IPC is not made out against the petitioners. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has read out Hemraj's statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the statement of Hemraj. Hemraj's statement is as under :- उसी समय बाबूलाल S/o जगÛनाथ जाित नाथ िनवासी डाबर मेरे पास आया और आते हȣ मेरȣ िगरैबान पकड ली व कहा तूने हमारे िलए Èया कहा मैने उससे कहा Ǒक मैने कुछ नहȣं बोला 2 तो बाबूलाल ने कहा िगǐरराज के पास चल मɇ उसके साथ हो िलया और कालू कȧ होटल के आगे नाला पार करते हȣ बाबूलाल ने िगरȣराज धाकड को फोन Ǒकया और हम तीन मूतȸ ितराहे पर पहंच गये तो वहाँ पर बाबूलाल ने मुझे रोक िलया थोडȣ देर मे ु िगरȣराज धाकड मोटर साइǑकल से गांव मɅ से आया तो बाबूलाल मुझे जबरन पकड कर ःकूल के कोट के पास ले गया इसके बाद दोनो हȣ मुझे जबरदःती ःकूल के चोक मɅ एकांत जगह ले गये । A bare perusal of these statements clearly reveal that Hemraj did not accompany the petitioners voluntarily, but initially he went with them because they had caught hold of his collar. Thus, he went with them under compulsion and not out of his own free will. Once they reached a particular place from there he was taken by force to the school. According to the definition of “abduction” as contained in Section 362 IPC, if a person is moved from any place by use of force, he is said to be “abducted”. According to Hemraj's statement, he was forcefully taken to the school. Therefore, clearly he was “abducted” as defined in the Penal Code. Moreover, according to his statement, he was confined in the school. Therefore, prima facie an offence under Section 365 IPC is made out against the petitioners. Hence, learned Judge has not committed any illegality in framing the charge for offence under Section 365 IPC. In this view of the matter, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-