Kishore Singh Lodha, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, dated 19-8-1983 by which cognizance was taken against the present three petitioners for offences under Section 366 and 143 IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 28-2-1983, Lala Ram lodged a report before the police station Noshra to the effect that his younger sister Kumari Laxmi had gone to attend the game of 'Loor' in the night of 28-2-1983 and did not return. He searched about her at various places but without any result. On the previous day, he was informed by Moola Ram that he had seen Kumari Laxmi at Jalore along with Nenia and Verma. It was farther mentioned that he also then went to Jalore but could not ascertain the where abouts of Kumari Laxmi. He expressed his doubts that the present three petitioners Bhima, Mandia and Praga had a hand in abducting Kumari Laxmi with the intention of performing her 'Nata' with Nenia. On this, the police registered a case under Section 366 and 363 IPC and started investigations. Kumari Laxmi was recovered. The police put up a challan against the accused Nenia and Veerma only for offences under Sections 366 and 376 against Nenia and 366 against Veerma. On 4-8-1983, the complainant Lala Ram also filed a complaint in respect of the same incident against the five accused persons, namely, Nenia Veerma, Bhima, Madia and Praga. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Lala Ram under Section 200 Cr. PC and that of Kumari Laxmi under Section 202 Cr. PC by order dated 19-8-83, passed by the learned Magistrate on the file of the Complainant Case No. 55/83 took cognizance for offences under Section 376, 366 and 143 IPC against Nenia and for offences under Section 366 and 143 IPC against the other four accused persons. Aggrieved of the cognizance being taken against the three petitioners Bhima, Madia and Praga they have come up before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a totally new case has been made in the complaint and the three petitioners have wrongly been implicated. The police has re-investigated the case and had thought it proper to put up a challan against Nenia and Veerma as according to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigations no material was available to connect the present petitioners with this incident; even Kumari Laxmi did not implicate these petitioners in statement under Section 161 Cr. PC. Therefore, merely on the later statement of Lala Ram and Kumari Laxmi in the enquiry on the complaint, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of any offence against the present petitioners. I am of the opinion that at this stage, this Court would not be justified in evaluating the evidence. The learned Magistrate has found some evidence during the enquiry on the complaint against the petitioners and therefore, has thought it proper to take cognizance of offences under Section 366 and 143 IPC against them. It would not be in the interest of justice therefore, to interfere with this order at this stage as the order cannot be said to be perverse or without any foundation what so ever. I will refrain from making any observations on the merits of this case lest it should prejudice the interest of either of the parties.
5. In these circumstance, I do not find any force in this revision and the same is therefore, rejected. The stay order passed on 2-11-1983 shall stand vacated.