( 1 ). This is a Criminal Revision petition against the order of Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge dated April 25, 1992 whereby the criminal revision of the respondent was allowed and the order of the trial court dated December 15, 1990 summoning the respondent to stand trial for an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC was set aside.

( 2 ). Facts giving rise to this criminal revision petition are as under:- A complaint was filed by the petitioner against Tulsi Dass and respondent under Sections 342/343/346/361/363/366 and 376/34 Indian Penal Code with the allegation that the minor daughter of the petitioner, namely, Raj Bala was kidnapped by the respondent on the night intervening January 14 and 15,1990 with the intention to compel her to marry Tulsi Dass, who was keeping her in wrongful confinement ever since she was kidnapped. In support of the complaint the petitioner examined himself and two other persons namely,shri Nanumal and Shri Yad Ram. On December 15, 1990 the trial court passed an order summoning the respondent in connection with the alleged commission of an offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code and against this order the respondent preferred a revision in the court below. On April 25, 1992 learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the revision holding that there were no grounds to proceed against the respondent for an offence undersection 363 Indian Penal Code and accordingly set aside the order of the trial court. While arriving at this conclusion, he noted that neither the complainant nor his witnesses had any personal knowledge about the kidnapping of Ms. Raj Bala. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, of the view that their statements were based on hearsay evidence. In this regard relevant portion of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as follows: -

"the statements of Nanu Mal and Yad Ram are not directly concerned with the incident of kidnapping of Miss Raj Bala. These witnesses appear to have gathered about the kidnapping of Miss Raj Bala from the respondent only. The respondent himself did not have any personal knowledge in regard to the kidnapping of Miss Raj Bala. He rather came to know of it from his wife Smt. Shanti and son, Jagdish. Shanti and Jagdish have not been examined to state that they had taken away Miss Raj Bala in the car of the petitioner. The statement of the respondent that the petitioner had taken away his daughter Miss Raj Bala in his car is thus based on hearsay. "

( 3 ). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Raj Bala was aminor and the petitioner being her legal guardian alone bad the authority to give her in marriage and even Smt. Shanti, the mother and Jagdish,the brother were not permitted in law to marry her offwithout the consent of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, since Rajbala was removed from the custody of the petitioner by the respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in setting aside the summoning order passed by the learned trial court qua respondent.

( 4 ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Raj Bala was 19 years old and her mother and brother had arranged her marriage with Tulsi Dass and it was at their instance that Raj Bala was married to him (Tulsi Das), that from the statement of the petitioner recorded by the learned ASJ at the pre-summoning stage, it is clear that Raj Bala left the parental home accompanied by her brother and mother in the car of the respondent, that they utilised the car of the respondent merely as a mode of transportation and the act of the respondent in providing the facility of the car to them cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought under the purview of Section 361 IPC. Learned counsel also pointed out that there was no allegation against the respondent of having exercised influence or pressure on Raja Bala or of having induced her to leave her house or to accompany him