JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed impugning order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision No.42/2017 whereby the charge framed by the Trial Court against the present petitioner under Section 363/374 IPC was modified to Section 368 read with Section 363 IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that FIR bearing No.111/2012 under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Chhawla came to be registered on 25.05.2012 on the complaint of one Bablu Tiwari. In the complaint, he stated that his daughter Somya Tiwari aged 15 years had not returned back to her home after she had gone to check her class 10th result at about 9 a.m. on 25.05.2012.

3. Later, on 08.07.2012, the complainant produced his daughter in the Police Station. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her medical examination was also conducted. Subsequently, on 10.07.2012, her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated as follows:-

“My name is Somya Tiwari. I study in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Dharampura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. This year itself, in the month of March, 2012, I had given my 10th class exams. On 25.05.2012, I had gone to check my 10th class results in cyber café nearby. I felt highly disappointed after seeing my marks/percentage 6.8% as I had done lots of hard work, I started feeling frightened to go back home. Then in order to go to my aunts (maasi) home I reached Uttam Nagar by bus. I did not know my aunts (maasi) home from there and while roaming like this I reached a market and sat outside a doctor’s clinic. The name of that clinic as Mehta nursing home. After sometime an old lady aged about 60 years came out of that clinic and started talking to me. When I told her everything she asked me not to fear and not to go back home and she will send me at such place where no one will scold me. She said you will get to study as well as money there. The name of that lady was V.Mehta. I went with that lady at her home and lived there for 4-5 days. That lady was a doctor. After 4-5 days she sent me to a lady named Madhuri, to work. I don’t know that place but that lady Madhuri lived in a flat in Lajwanti Apartment. I was told that I will have to do household work for which I will get Rs.4000/- per month. I worked in that home for 20-22 days thereafter Madhuri sent me to her mother’s house which is in ‘A’ Block, Shyam Vihar, Najafgarj. There I worked for about 10 days and one day finding opportunity without informing anybody I came back home. Nothing wrong has happened with me and I don’t have anything further to say….”

4. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was on the same lines as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither the ingredients of the offence under Section 363 IPC nor for the offence under Section 368 IPC are made out against the present petitioner. It was contended that the offence under Section 363 IPC is not a continuing offence. In support, he has placed reliance on the decision in S.K.Yusuf v. State reported as 1988 SCC OnLine Cal 41 and Sau. Banu Ram Chandra Borgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6380. So far as the offence under Section 368 IPC is concerned, it was contended that it has not been shown that the petitioner had the requisite knowledge of the prosecutrix being kidnapped. In support, he has placed reliance on the decision in Brahm Dutt v. State of Punjab reported as 1999 SCC OnLine P&H 566.

6. Although learned APP for the state has opposed the petition but learned counsel for the complainant and the prosecutrix (impleaded as Respondent No. 2 & 3) have supported the petition. Infact, written replies duly supported by the respective affidavits of the complainant as well as the prosecutrix (now aged 22 years) have also been placed on record in support of the petition.

7. In the reply filed by the prosecutrix, it has been state