ROSHAN DALVI, J.

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of Sessions Court, Mumbai dated 4th July, 2007 allowing the Revision Application No.1261 of 2007 against the order of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai refusing to discharge the accused in the case, Respondent No.2 herein of offences punishable U/s.363 and 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) upon seeing a prima facie case also U/s.366 of the IPC and accordingly committing the case to the Sessions Court. By the impugned order the Judge, Sessions Court, Mumbai set aside the order of the learned ACMM dated 3rd October, 2006 and discharged Respondent No.2 not only in respect of offence U/s.366 of IPC, which was prima facie seen by the Magistrate, but also Section 363 and 506 (ii) of IPC and consequently the order of committing the case to the Sessions Court itself and remanding the case for being tried by the learned Magistrate's court for the remaining charges U/s.323, 324, 342, & 354 of IPC.

2. The incident from which the offences emanated took place on 6th September, 2003 / 7th September, 2003. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were friends and in a relationship. On 6th September, 2004 they were with their friends to celebrate the birthday party of one of their friends. In the early hours of 7th September, 2003 a dinner was arranged for them in Lush Hotel, Phoneix Mill compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai. All the friends proceeded there in a car. The Petitioner was in the car of Respondent No.2. They alone were in that car. Respondent No.2 instead of proceeding to Lush Hotel from Pedder Road turned his car at Haji Ali Junction and proceeded towards his home in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. At about 1 p.m. they came into the compound of his building. The Petitioner refused to come out of the car. Respondent No.2 pulled her out by force, lifted her and took her to his house. In his home he beat her with his hands, struck her head and caused injuries. At 2 p.m. his parents came home when the father of Respondent No.2 took the Petitioner back to her house.

3. On 7th September, 2003 the Petitioner went to the house of her friend whose birthday party was celebrated on 6th September, 2003. She returned to her home the next day. She went for medical treatment to her Doctor, one Dr. Poddar, on 10th September, 2003. She went to lodge her complaint on 11th September, 2003. She was sent to Nair Hospital for medical check up and then sent home. She lodged her initial complaint on 12th September, 2003.

4. The Petitioner's complaint is of being taken by Respondent No.2 to his house instead of the dinner at Lush hotel and of being beaten up there and of being treated by her Doctor and later of having taken a medical check up in Nair Hospital.

5. Later she has filed the further statement which is her second statement to the police. It is on a computer printout. The Petitioner who was present before the Court stated to Court that she herself typed it on the computer of police station. It is shown to be dated 19th August, 2003, a date prior to the incident. That may be an error. It is signed by the Police Inspector also on 19th August. It bears a rubber stamp of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sr. P.I. and PI crime dated 29th 03. The statement is in furtherance of her statement given on 12th September, 2003.

6. In that statement a Petitioner has made out the case of being molested which was not stated earlier due to embarrassment. It shows that she mentally prepared herself after explaining the facts to her mother and made her statement voluntarily. The facts of molestation are in paragraph 4 of the statement. Paragraph 5 has described certain injuries which are stated to be related to molestation.

7. It would be mentioned that the Petitioner has exhibited certain photographs of certain injuries to the Petitioner but the injuries described in paragraph 5 of the 2nd statement dated 19th August, 2003 are not shown in the photographs. No medic