HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1821 of 2009 Between Ibrahim Bin Bilal. ….PETITIONER And The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor. …..RESPONDENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1821 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order in Crl.MP.No. 936 of 2009 in S.C.No. 357 of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 passed by the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is an accused in S.C.No. 357 of 2009 which arose out of Crime No. 381 of 2008 of P.S., Saifabad. As seen from the charge sheet allegations, the allegation against the petitioner is that he kidnapped the victim girl, on the pretext of marrying her from her residence and took her to Gulbarg in Karnataka. Both of them returned back to Hyderabad on 15.06.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. It appears that during trial, the victim girl turned hostile and categorically deposed that she does not know the petitioner and that there is no relationship between her and the petitioner-accused. She had further categorically deposed that she was not kidnapped by the petitioner in the year 2008. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition in Crl.MP.No. 936 of 2009 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the marriage certificate dated 07.07.2008 from the office of the Quazzath Sarkar, Quila, Mohammed Nagar, Bara Mahal, Golconda, Hyderabad, and also marriage certificate from the office of the A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, contending that the petitioner and the victim girl were married on 07.07.2008 and that the marriage certificates were issued from the above offices. The lower Court allowed the said application by order dated 13.10.2009. The only point that raises for consideration is whether the documents sought to be summoned by the Additional Public Prosecutor are necessary for the disposal of the case. It is not in dispute that the father of the victim girl had reported about missing of the girl on 15.06.2008. Originally, a girl missing case was registered on 15.06.2008. Subsequently, the section of law was altered to Sections 363 and 506 IPC during the course of investigation. The accused was arrested and the victim girl was restored to her parents. The alleged incident of kidnapping occurred in the intervening night of 11/12.06.2008 and the report was given on 15.06.2008. Even according to the memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the victim girl was solemnized on 07.07.2008 and the marriage certificate was issued on 25.07.2008. Admittedly, the victim girl did not support the case of the prosecution. Even if it is held that the petitioner has subsequently married the victim on 07.07.2008 and obtained marriage certificate on 25.07.2008, that may not help the prosecution to prove the offence of kidnapping that occurred in the intervening night of 11/12.06.2008. Since the star witness herself did not support the case of the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served by summoning the documents and, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The criminal revision case is allowed accordingly at the admission stage itself. B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Date :03.11.2009 usd