Sandeep Mehta, J.

By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner whereby, the learned Trial Judge accepted the application filed by the prosecution and directed summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in the case alongwith the charge-sheeted accused Navratan. Facts in brief are that the complainant Khetpal lodged a written report at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner on 23.11.2013 alleging inter alia that his daughter Sushri 'S' was married to Gajendra Suthar on 18.11.2013. The accused reside in the complainant's neighbourhood. Navratan was keeping an evil eye on Sushri 'S' since long. She had come to the maternal home on 21.11.2013 but was not seen in the house on the next morning. The complainant thereupon, started a search for his daughter. When inquiry was made from the accused persons, Choru Lal told the complainant that his son had succeeded in achieving his goal and that he could not do anything about it. As per the complainant, Navratan, in conspiracy with his father, mother and wife abducted his daughter alongwith her gold & silver ornaments as well as cash. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.425/2013 was registered at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the I.O. concluded that the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were made out against the accused Navratan and filed a charge-sheet only against him in the court concerned. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where, the same was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner for trial. Charges were framed against the accused Navratan for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At that stage, the complainant submitted an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in the trial court with a prayer to summon the accused petitioners as additional accused in the case. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 27.07.2015 which is assailed in the instant revision.

2. Shri P.K. Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecutrix Sushri 'S' is a major married woman. She was having a long standing love affair with Navratan and eloped with him just three days after her forced marriage with Gajendra Suthar. She was traced out on 28.11.2013. When the I.O. noted her apparel and general condition, she was wearing all her ornaments. Her statement was recorded by the I.O. on 28.11.2013 and in such statement, she categorically stated that she was having a prevailing friendship with Navratan for the last 6-7 years. Neither did Navratan abduct her nor was she subjected to any immoral act by Navratan. Thereafter, she was allowed to go with her father. Before being traced out by the I.O., the lady suo motu appeared before the CJM, Sikar and submitted an application dated 27.11.2013 mentioning therein that she had gone with Navratan of her own free will without any threat duress or coercion and that the FIR No.435/2013 lodged by her family members was based on false aspersions. The lady was later on examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with the present case on 07.12.2013 and in such statement, she changed her version and alleged that on the night of 21.11.2013, while she had returned from her matrimonial home to her father's house, Navratan called on her mobile at 03.30 am and coerced her to come out of the house without telling anybody. He threatened that in case she hesitated, he would kill her family members. She knew Navratan from before because he used to live in the neighbourhood. She alleged that Navratan caught hold of her hair and forcib