they were employed with a Seth at Dhanbad (Jharkhand) at the instance of petitioner. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she did not state anything against the petitioner. On 14.08.2014, the petitioner was arrested at Dhanbad (Jharkhand) by the police of Police Station Govind Puri but since transit remand was not given by the Learned ADJ-I Dhanbad as such, he could not be brought to Delhi. The petitioner was given a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C to appear before the police but he failed to do so. Consequently, non-bailable warrants were issued against him which could not be executed. Thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender. The supplementary chargesheet was filed by the police. It is submitted that the petitioner was unaware about the marriage of the prosecutrix with Rajeev Kumar. Rajeev Kumar came to the residence of the petitioner at Dhanbad and informed that the prosecutrix was the younger sister of his Bhabhi and he had to leave her at her native village and that he had brought the prosecutrix with the consent of her parents. As such, both the accused and the prosecutrix stayed there for one or two days and thereafter left him. It is submitted that only on the basis of the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the petitioner cannot be convicted for the offences as alleged against him and as such, the FIR qua the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
