At the initial stage, if there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense, the court should proceed with the trial. The key provisions of Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code were emphasized, highlighting the elements required to establish the offense.

Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih in S.T. No.323 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) for his discharge, has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the revision application, in short, is that at the instance of the informant Madan Rana, Dhanwar P.S. Case No.138 of 2011 was instituted under Section 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner with the allegation that on 15.08.2011 at about 3.30 p.m. his daughter Hemanti Kumari aged about 14 years studying in Class VIII was enticed away by two persons namely Chandan Ram (the petitioner) aged about 22 years and Akash Ram aged about 15 years with some ulterior motive.

3. It appears from the record that during investigation the police recovered the girl from bus stand in Giridih and thereafter her statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded by the court and in the statement she has denied the allegation of kidnapping by the present petitioner or by any other person rather she has stated that she herself left her home scared by the fear of being scolded by her mother and came near the school of village and called Chandan Ram of her own village, who was known to her prior to the incidence and when he came she requested him to accompany her to Banaras but the said Chandan Ram refused to accompany her. However, after persuasion and threatening that she will commit suicide, they took a bus and came to Gaya and from Gaya they came to Banaras by a train. She has also stated in her statement that she had assured Chandan to return all his money which he has spent on her. Thereafter, she gave Rupees One thousand to Chandan, who had to go to Surat (Gujarat) where he works. In Banaras, she met with two unknown ladies and lived there but those two ladies took her to Madhupur where she met with two persons of her own village and thereafter came to Giridih. She was planning to go to her own house but in the meantime police came and caught her. It appears from the record that after investigation the police submitted the chargesheet under Section 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two accused whereafter the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the petitioner filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge but the same was rejected by the order impugned holding that sufficient material is available on record to frame charge against the petitioner. Hence, this revision.

4. Mr. Shri Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the court below erred in not discharging the petitioner as no offence under Section 366(A) or any other provision of Indian Penal Code is made out against this petitioner. It was also submitted that except that the girl was below 18 years of age, no other ingredient responsible to constitute the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and even in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, girl has nowhere alleged of either seducing her or that she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with any other person rather she had left her house out of fear of being scolded. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be discharged.

5. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel representing the State contended that the court below while rejecting the petition for his discharge has appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective and at this initial stage, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be meticulously examined rather presently strong prima facie case is sufficient to frame charge against the petitioner.

6. Being quite conscious of the fact