Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7824 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava @ Chaman S/O Late Mrityunjay Srivastava Resident Of Village- Majhawaliya, P.S.- Mufasil, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Alimul Haque S/O Habibul Haque Resident Of Village- Rama Pali, P.S.- Mufasil, District- Siwan .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s. Ranjeet Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Adv For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. M.K.Khare, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 6 05-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 27th May 2009 passed in Siwan Mufassil P.S.Case No.22 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance [STATUTE] ts of the case is that an FIR was lodged by the informant stating that he along with his sister had gone to the Block Office for the purpose of employment of his sister. While they were returning on a Rickshaw, accused persons, including the petitioner intercepted them and on the point of Deshi Katta, kidnapped his sister Farheen and fled away. From the record it appears that the girl appeared Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7824 of 2011 (6) dt.05-10-2012 2 / 4 2 before the court on 28th February 2009 and made her statement before the Magistrate [STATUTE] etitioner, parents from both sides refused their marriage which compelled her to come to Siwan on 24th January 2010, went to Thabe Temple where they entered into a marriage. In her statement she has also given the case Number which was filed by the informant and had shown her desire to live with her husband. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at present she has been residing with her parents. It also appears that the girl was examined by a team of Doctors where her age has been assessed between 17 – 18 years (Annexure-3). It also appears from the record, after the investigation, Police submitted charge/sheet against the petitioner but with regard to two others, Final Form was submitted. The court below after examining the record, has taken cognizance [STATUTE] s not a case of kidnapping for the purpose of marriage rather the fact is that the girl of her own desire after attending majority, had entered into marriage with him in a temple which is apparent from the statement made by the girl herself before the Magistrate concerned. He has further submitted that the two majors have a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7824 of 2011 (6) dt.05-10-2012 3 / 4 3 right under law to choose there life partner and there cannot be any restriction or impediment to it. He has relied on the judgment reported in (2006)5 SCC 475 (Lata Singh v. State of U.P.) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this issue and has held that if the girl or the boy has attained the majority, in that circumstance it is not desirable for any person to interfere or intervene in their love. Each and every major has a right to lead his/her own life of choice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. Such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religion marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religion marriage. Counsel for the O.P. submitted that these issues can be looked into at the stage of trial and submitted that though the Doctor has assessed the age of the girl between 17-18 years and if Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7824 of 2011 (6) dt.05-10-2012 4 / 4 4 it is taken to be 17 years, then certainly the girl was minor. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it is an admitted fact that boy and girl were major, as she in her statement [STATUTE] arriage, as parents from both sides were not ready. In that circumstance in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh (supra) this Court is of the view that continuation of the trial against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 27th May 2009 is quashed. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 366A

Statute Text:
Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Procuration of minor girl. Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.