Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24944 of 2010 (2) dt.03-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24944 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Bhavdish Chaudhary son of Ram Sagun Chaudhary 2. Dharmendra Chaudhary son of Bhavdish Chaudhary 3. Ranjit Chaudhary son of Bhavdish Chaudhary 4. Sanjiv Chaudhary son of Nunu Chaudhary 5. Rajesh Chaudhary @ Sri Ram Chaudhary son of late Niwas Chaudhary. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Sharkar Sada son of late Devaki Sada, resident of vill.-Mushilampur, P.S.-Bibhutipur, Distt.-Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. K. Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. Upadhayaya, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 2 03-02-2012 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.3.2008 passed by S.D.J.M., Rosera(Samastipur) in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. case no.212 of 2005, Tr. no.2296 of 2008 by which he has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . According to the written report filed by the informant, some persons including the petitioners are said to have fled away with the daughter of the informant for the purpose of getting her married with one Bauanand Choudhary. It has been further alleged that the informant’s daughter is a minor aged 12 years and 10 months. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement of the victim girl given before the police officer to the effect that she is 19 years old and she had gone with Baunnand Choudhary out of her own accord. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24944 of 2010 (2) dt.03-02-2012 Finding prima facie case against the petitioners after going through the materials on record including the case diary, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. In view of the specific allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, the petitioners are always at liberty to raise all the points at an appropriate stage in the trial court. sudip/- (Vikash Jain, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 366

Statute Text:
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or to cause her defilement etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.