IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47606 of 2007 AMIT AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 10/2/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for O.P. No.3. No one appears on behalf of informant/O.P. No.2 despite valid service of notice. O.P. No.2 filed Patna City Chauk P.S. Case No.269/06 on 26.12.2006 under Section-366A of I.P.C. The F.I.R. stated that his daughter, O.P. No.3, was 17 years of age. That she had complained earlier that the petitioner used to accost her and persuade her to marry him. He also stated that he was in government service. When O.P. No.2 protested of the conduct of the petitioner to his mother and sister, they stated that these things happen in the modern world. The O.P. No.2 admonished them and threatened to take legal action. The father of the petitioner and his brother threatened the O.P. No.2 to kidnap him and implicate in false cases if he opposed the meeting of the petitioner and O. P.No.3. On the date 25.12.2006 at 5.00 a.m. the wife of O.P. No.2 discovered that O.P. No.3 was not on her bed. When the family members searched for her, they found the mobile phone missing. They began to suspect the petitioner. They 2 went to the house of the petitioner. His mother and sister acknowledged that O.P. No.3 had come to their house for marrying the petitioner and threatened to kill O.P. No.3 if O.P. No.2 obstructed the marriage. The petitioner then rang up twice or thrice from Delhi and threatened O.P. No.2. In this manner, the O.P. No.2 alleged that the petitioner and his family members had abducted his daughter, O.P. No.3, for wrong reasons and, therefore, necessary action be taken against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a B.Sc. Hon’s from the Science College, Patna University, Patna. His date of birth is 12.10.1983 and he was, therefore, approximately 23 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence. Likewise, O.P. No.3, daughter of O.P. No.2/informant was born on 16.8.1983 and had passed I.Sc. from R.P.F. College, Patna and was also approximately 23 years of age on the date of occurrence. That they had developed an intimacy in their college days and they both married at Arya Samaj Mandir at Delhi. That the O.P. No.3 was living with the petitioner as his wife. The ire of O.P. No.2 was aroused because they belonged to different castes. Learned counsel for O.P. No.3 submits that her date of birth recorded in the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna by her parents is 16.8.1983 3 which clearly takes her beyond the purview of Section- 366A of I.P.C. Though this Court does not have the benefit of the personal appearance of O.P. No.3, from the photographs of the marriage ceremony annexed to the petition it is more than apparent to this Court that both, the petitioner and the O.P. No.3, are well beyond approximately 20 years of age. Presumably for that reason O.P. No.2 has chosen not to enter appearance. It is, indeed, a matter of satisfaction that he has now reconciled to the marriage of his daughter and has given up his desire to interfere with her married life which she claims to be leading peacefully. This Court is, therefore, satisfied on the face of the materials available that Section-366A of I.P.C. has no application, whatsoever, in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, to permit the prosecution of the petitioner to continue in Patna City Chauk P.S. Case No.269/06 under Section-366A of I.P.C., pending before the A.C.J.M., Patna City shall be a gross abuse of the process of the court. The entire proceedings in the police case is accordingly quashed. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)