IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2400 of 2008 1. RITENDRA KUMAR, SON OF JAI PRAKASH GUPTA. 2. JAI PRAKASH GUPTA, SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR SAH. 3. GURIYA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF JAI PRAKASH GUPTA. 4. JITENDRA GUPTA, SON OF JAIPRAKASH GUPTA. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF TURKAULIYA BAZAR, P.S. TURKAULIA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. RAKESH KUMAR ALIAS RAKESH KUMAR PATEL, SON OF KHEDU RAUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PARSURAMPUR, P.S.TURKAULIA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. ………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. VIKASH ABHISEK, SON OF SUNIL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BANGARA, P.S. KOTWA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 3. SULEKHA KUMARI, WIFE OF RITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 45, SHANKARPUR, ASHOK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Srivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate. -------------- 3. 9.1.2009. All the five F.I.R. named accused of Motihari(Town) P.S. Case No.84 of 2006 have preferred this application for quashing of the order deated 15.2.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. against the petitioners. One Vikash Abhisek, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed Complaint Case No.555 of 2006 inter alia stating that like all other days, he, on 28.3.2006, had taken his minor sister Sulekha Kumari - 2 - alias Preeti Kumari, aged about 14 years, from Turkaulia to Gopal Sah High School, Motihari, to appear at the Matriculation Examination and had also treated her with refreshment after the first sitting. But, when at the end of the second sitting, he went to collect her she could not be found. Enquiry with the Center Superintendent revealed that she had absented herself during the second sitting. He informed his father and a search was launched for Sulekha. In course of the search, they, on mere suspicion, interrogated accused no.5, Rakesh Kumar Patel, who though having nothing to do with the matriculation examination was everyday found loitering around the examination center and he after dexterous avoidance eventually revealed that at around 2 P.M. he had seen Sulekha in the company of Ritendra Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Guriya Kumari, proceeding towards Chhatauni. He also revealed that Reetendra had a mobile set and he volunteered to talk to him and locate his whereabouts. In the meanwhile the Town P.S. was approached but they avoided registering a case. Thereafter accused Jay Prakash Gupta, the father of accused Reetendra, was approached and his help was sought for recovery of the girl. Jay Prakash sought for two days time but became traceless in the meanwhile. The complaint case was transmitted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned P.S. and on the basis thereof Motihari(Town) P.S. Case No.84 of 2006 was registered. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 and O.P. No.3 had fallen in love with - 3 - each other and had solemnized their marriage in Arya Samaj Temple, Chilagaon (Jaisinghpur) in the District of East Champaran on 13.4.2006 for which a certificate was issued by Ved Gyan Mandir, Vedic Satsang Mandir, Chilagaon, and a female child had been born out of the wedlock on 24.1.2007 after the couple had settled down to a peaceful conjugal life at Delhi. It has also been submitted that Sulekha had written to the Chief Minister, Director General of Police, Bihar, Regional I.G., D.I.G., and the S.P. East Champaran, informing them of the false implication of the petitioners who were family members of her matrimonial home. She had stated that she on attaining majority had, out of her free will and volition, solemnized her marriage with petitioner no.1 by Arya Samaj rites. It was also submitted that both petitioner no.1 and O.P. No.3 had sworn affidavits before the Notary Public at Begusarai declaring their age as 23 years and 22 years respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners also made a grievance against the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against all the petitioners when the police had submitted a final form against petitioner nos.2, 3,4 and 5 and moreso when there was no material in the case diary to connect them with the crime and sufficient material was available in the case diary indicating petitioner no.1 and O.P. No.3 having solemnized their marriage and leading a peaceful conjugal life. Alluring as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners may sound, the fact remains that apart from the affidavit of - 4 - O.P. No.3 before the Notary Public at Begusarai, and her declaration of having attained majority in the letters written by her there is nothing on record to indicate that she had attained majority. The affidavits before the Notary Public at Begusarai have not been brought on record and one is left to presume that the age given therein was on the basis of her self declaration which cannot be considered to be sound proof. In this view of the matter the claim of her attaining majority and having exercised her independent will and volition to marry petitioner no.1 cannot be accepted. In absence of cogent proof of her attaining majority she will be deemed to be a minor and the marriage a void one. So far as taking of cognizance against petitioner nos.2 to 5 is concerned, they were last seen together accompanying Sulekha towards Chhatauni. It also appears that petitioner no.2 is a signatory on the marriage certificate issued by Ved Gyan Mandir, Vedic Satsang Mandir and therefore he must have been well aware of all the relevant facts and circumstances and therefore a willing participant in the offence under Section 366 A I.P.C. Petitioner nos.3 and 4 happen to be the son and daughter of petitioner no.2 and the brother and sister of petitioner no.1. They too must have been well aware of the facts and circumstances and yet never disclosed the same to anyone. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)