Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13291 of 2010 ====================================================== Alok Ram, alias Alok Ranjan, Son of Jai Chandra Ram, resident of Mohalla-Miscot, P.S. Motihari Town, District-East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shanti Devi , W/O Sri Rajendra Prasad Gupta 3. Kumari Anju Gupta, D/O Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Both residents of Mohalla- Miscot, P.S. Motihari Town, District-East Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------------- 3 31-07-2012 Heard Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 and 3( victim girl) and Sri Harendra Prasad, learned Adl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari ( East Champaran) in Motihari Town P.S. Case No.182 of 2008. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier solemnized marriage with the victim girl in a temple. However, at subsequent stage, in a proceeding i.e. in a writ petition, before this Court, girl had appeared and she said that she wanted to live with her parents. It was further argued that the police after investigation had not found sufficient materials for sending the petitioner on trial, but the learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13291 of 2010 (3) dt.31-07-2012 2 / 2 2 Magistrate differing with the police report has passed order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that subsequently, the victim girl has already solemnized marriage with one another person and she is residing with her husband. In this case, by order dated 13.12.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead the informant as well as victim girl as Opp.Party nos.2 and 3 respectively. Thereafter, Opp.Party no. 3 has appeared through her counsel. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.3 as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. After going through the material available on record as well as the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the order of cognizance. I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. The petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition, at the appropriate stage. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.