petitioner enticed away her minor daughter. In fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were well known to each other. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that they wanted to marry each other, and initially their parents were in agreement to the said marriage but later on they refused. Therefore, she on her own will, went away with the petitioner on 25.1.2023 and visited various places. It is further submitted that the material witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix and the complainant have been examined and there is material improvements in their respective statements. Learned counsel contends that the subsequent adverse statement of the prosecutrix was made only on account of family pressure. Even, the FSL report also does not substantiate the allegations so levelled. Moreover, since the material witnesses stand examined, there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the witnesses. He further submits that the petitioner, who too was aged about 19 years at the relevant time, has undergone an actual custody of 03 years and 25 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.
