The main legal point established is that consensual relations and voluntary marriage ceremonies, without evidence of force, coercion, or duress, can lead to the quashing of charges under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 50/2001 whereby charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120B I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioner.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Hanuman Nath filed a report at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner on 23.5.2001 alleging inter alia that he was having two daughters, the elder whereof was already married, the younger Mst. A was in the house. He had gone to his duty at Lalgarh in the morning at about 7 O' clock. His daughter-in-law Saroj and daughter Mst. A were alone in the house. He further alleged that his neighbour's son Sumit s/o Jhanwar Lal, aged about 25 years, was having an evil eye towards his daughter and that he had made some complaints in this regard to Jhanwar Lal and his wife. He alleged that he received a call from his younger son Bunty, aged about 16 years, that Mst. A was missing since morning. He came back and found that Mst. A was not present in the house and Sumit also missing from his house. He suspected that his daughter had been enticed away by Sumit.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 160/2001 was registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police during the course of investigation, recovered Mst. A, the abducted girl, on 3.6.2001. On being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was having close relations with the petitioner for last about 1½ years. She further alleged that her parents had forcibly engaged her with one Navneet about two months back. She clearly stated that despite her unwillingness, her parents were forcing her to marry Navneet. She further stated that when Sumit heard about her engagement with Navneet, he stopping talking to her. On 20.5.2001, she called Sumit on telephone and asked him to take her away but Sumit refused. Thereafter, she again called him and pleaded with him that her parents were marrying her forcibly against her desire and insisted that she would have relations only with him. She called Sumit to a hotel at Shivbadi Road, Bikaner on 23.5.2001. She and Sumit both reached the Hotel. They went to Dungargarh and stayed there in a hotel at night. On 25.5.2001, they left Dungargarh and went to Jaipur and stayed there at a hotel opposite the Railway Station. On 27.5.2001, they travelled to Ajmer and stayed in a hotel at Ajmer. On 28.5.2001, they filed an application for marriage at Arya Samaj and got married on 2.6.2001 by performing the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter they stayed at Ajmer. She further stated that Sumit did not establish any physical relations with her before the marriage and they consensually consummated the marriage after the marriage. On 4.6.2001, while she was sitting alone at the Dargah, the police took her to Bikaner. She clearly stated that Sumit never gave any allurement to her and did not entice her and that she had gone with Sumit of her own freewill and married him voluntarily.

5. The I.O. also recorded the statements of various hotel owners where the petitioner and the abducted girl had stayed after eloping.

6. The prosecutrix was thereafter examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2001 wherein she alleged that she was offered tea by Asha and on consuming the same, she became unconscious. She was taken to Teja Garden and from there, Sumit and Jitendra took her to Ajmer and there, Sumit forcibly married her at the Shiv Temple. Thereafter, she was taken to Jaipur and there Sumit forcibly established physical relations with her under the pretext that they were married. She has further alleged that they went to Ajmer where they were married by the Arya Samaj people. The significant fact in the said statement is that she has not stated that the ceremonies of marriage which took place betwe