The court held that the trial court had not erred in issuing process against the petitioners and other accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court found that the prosecutrix's testimony was consistent and reliable, and that there was sufficient evidence to show the grave possibility of a conviction in the present case.

1. - Both these petitions challenge the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur whereby the learned Judge has issued process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, Imran and Jalish Khan @ Jalish Pradhan, and others for offence under Section 376 IPC. Hence, both these petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 8.12.2010, one Nanga submitted a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kaman wherein he claimed that his niece, the prosecutrix in this case, aged about 16 years, was staying with him for the last two years. On 20.10.2010 between 4.00 to 5.00 PM, his niece and her aunt, Kamla, were coming back home after cutting some wood. As soon as they reached near B.K. Haryana Crusher Machine, they saw a white colour Marshal Car standing there. Nisar S/o. Ayyub, Maujuda S/o. Mutthhar, Nihal S/o. Dulla, Rahees S/o. Jallu, residents of Village Laharwadi, P.S. Punhana, District Mewat Nooh, Haryana, along with Islamuddin S/o. Saddiq, Chain son of unknown, were standing near the Car. These persons lifted his niece and threw her into the Car. When Kamla raised a hue and cry, Roopa and Mehmood rushed to their rescue. However, they could not stop the accused persons from escaping from the place. Kamla came back home and informed the family members. He and his family members went to the elders of the village in order to resolve the case. The elder members told him that since Israil's family members live in village Laharwadi, they will contact him. The elder members also asked the complainant not to file any report with the police. Israil was asked to contact the husband of the Sarpanch of Village Laharwadi, Safi. Safi informed them that the accused Nisar, Maujuda, Nihal, Rahees were not in the village. Safi also promised that he will cooperate with them and will try to help them out. Subsequently, Safi called the elder members of the complainant's village, namely Mohammad Zahoor Khan, Ex-MLA, Kaman, Abdul Rahman and Razzak, the former Sarpanch. When they went to the Panchayat, the persons from Village Laharwadi such as, Jahaj Khan, Sheikh, Itmal, Majeed, Saleem, Vaheed, Hastu, Gaffur and Bhure Khan along with family members of Nisar and Maujuda were present at the Panchayat. These persons told the complainant and his family members that his niece is with them. But his niece is with the accused persons who are not in the village. They also promised him that they will try their level best to have the girl returned. They asked for 5-10 days time to do the needful. However, even subsequently these persons kept on delaying the matter unnecessarily. Again on 6.12.2010 the complainant was called to Village Laharwadi. Initially these persons promised to return the girl, but after waiting for two hours, they refused to do so. The complainant and his family members were informed that the girl has changed her religion, and has become a Muslim. Therefore, they will not return the girl to them. Thus, on 7.12.2010, the complainant went to the Police Station Kaman for lodging a report. But the police refused to registered the FIR. Therefore, he has filed the criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate.

3. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Kaman. Consequently, the police registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 25/11 for offence under Section 366 IPC. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered. Due to her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 376 IPC was added. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet only against Nisar and not against other accused persons named in the FIR.

4. During the trial, after recording testimony of five witnesses, namely Nanga (PW.1), Mohd. Zahoor (PW.2), Roopa (PW.3), the prosecutrix (PW.4), and Abdul Rahman (PW.5), the prosecution su