Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby the accused were discharged in case/FIR No.54 dated 20.4.2007 registered under Section 363/511/34 IPC at P.S. City Gurdaspur and further order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby revision petition filed by the State against the aforesaid order of discharge was dismissed.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, from the facts of the case, attempt to abduct the prosecutrix with intention to secretly and wrongly confine her, is established on record and thus, the basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 365/511/34 IPC are clearly made out against both the accused. It has been averred that inspite of making application dated 7.7.2009 for framing charges under Section 365/511/34 IPC, the trial Court has not even framed the charges against the accused under Section 363/511/34 IPC, for which, the FIR in question was registered.

3. To elaborate his arguments further, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that at the stage of framing of charges, merely a strong suspicion taking cognizance of the facts from the report under Section 173 CrPC is enough to frame a charge and there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospects of conviction. Moreover, the Court is not obliged to see the truth and veracity of allegations at the stage of framing of charges, whereas in the present case, the trial Court has built up a case of defence and has taken into consideration the evidence/material produced by the defence, which could not have been done. It has been further submitted that even the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur has committed a manifest error while dismissing the revision filed by the State and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and other documents placed on record of this petition.

5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 22.12.2010 and the instant petition, challenging the impugned orders, has been filed on 10.2.2011, but the same was not argued till date even for preliminary hearing. No explanation is forthcoming for coming to this Court after such a long delay. Be that as it may, this Court is proceeding to decide this case on its merits.

6. It is useful to refer the relevant part of the impugned order dated 14.9.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, which reads as follows:-

“7. Indeed wherever a strong suspicion about commission of offence is prima facie made out from the facts put forth in police report, charge against the accused is liable to be framed. The facts of the instant case however put up a totally different picture. What to talk about strong suspicion of commission of offence by accused, the present set of facts prima facie show the false implication of accused on account of registration of FIR against the uncle, aunt and sister of the present complainant at the instance of Jasdip Kaur present accused No.2 in Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur. So much so, the complainant herself has talked about the said FIR having been registered at the instance of Dr. Jasdip Kaur against her relatives and has further alleged that on the fateful day when she came out of her college after sitting in her exam she was dragged by the accused saying that they would abduct her. As per the complainant herself offence under Section 363 is made out (sic) the accused as the same deals with kid of a minor under section 16 years of age whereas the present complainant is major aged about 22 years. So far as the offence under section 365 IPC is concerned the same talks of abducting with intent to secretly and wrongly confine a person. However, neither any ingredients of inducement made by th