Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9126 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9126 of 2010 ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav son of Sri Jagan Yadav, resident of Village- Salanpur, P.S.-G.B. Nagar (Tarwara), District-Siwan. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mishri Lal Das son of late Ranglal Das, resident of Village- Britia, P.S.-Mohammadpur, District-Gopalganj. 3. Mamta Kumari daughter of Bramhdeo Das wife of Raj Kumar Yadav, resident of Britiya, P.S.-Mohammadpur, District-Gopalganj presently residing at Salanpur, P.S.-G.B. Nagar, District-Siwan. .... .... Opposite Parties ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashwant Kumar Chaman, Adv. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Upendra Kumar Choubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 8 12-12-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in this application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in T.R. No. 5026 of 2009 arising out of Mohamadpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioner. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9126 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 4. It appears that opposite party no. 2, Mishri Lal Das, filed a Complaint Case No. 2240 of 2007 regarding kidnapping of his niece, Mamta Kumari, opposite party no. 3, against the accused- petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav, which was forwarded was under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned police station for investigation and submission of final form and, accordingly, Mohamadpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 was instituted under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioner and on investigation police submitted the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioner through the impugned order dated 20.10.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari, moved from her house on her own sweet will and performed the marriage with the accused-petitioner and there is now two children born due to their wedlock. As such continuance of criminal proceeding is not justified and placed reliance on a decision reported in case of {2010 (4) PLJR Page 50} Md. Aminuddin Khan @Aminuddin Ahamad Khan @ Golden Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 made submission that the accused-petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav and opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari is now leading the happy conjugal life and they have two children born due to their wedlock. It is further submitted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9126 of 2010 (8) dt.12-12-2012 that at present continuance of proceeding would amount to disturb in their conjugal life. A counter affidavit has also been filed by opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari, in which she has specifically stated in paragraph no. 4 that she moved from her house on her own sweet will and performed the marriage with the accused-petitioner and now she has two children and she is leading her conjugal life with her husband, Raj Kumar Yadav (accused-petitioner) happily. 7. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav is leading the happy conjugal life with opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari and two children were born due to their wedlock. As such, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not be justifiable and in the interest of justice. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in T.R. No. 5026 of 2009, arising out of Mohamadpur (Gopalganj) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj and further proceeding in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 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.