IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5358 of 2009 1. NARESH BHAGAT, S/O LATE RAMASHRAY BHAGAT 2. SITA PATI DEVI, W/O NARESH BHAGAT 3. RAVINDRA KUMAR 4. BUDDHAN MALAKAR BOTH ARE SONS OF NARESH BHAGAT, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE TETARIA, NETAUL, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE KAMTE PRASAD SINGH, R/O MOHALLA K.P. NAGAR, NEW BYE PASS ROAD, ASHOK CHOWK, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** For the petitioners .. M/S Din Bandhu Singh & Santosh Kumar, Advs. For the State .. Mr. Dilip Kr. Sinha, APP **** /9/ 6th April 2011 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is for quashing the first information report, dated 21.11.2005, bearing Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 416 of 2005 for offence under Section 366A of the Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant, Nagendra Prasad Singh, that his daughter, Mamta Kumari, aged fourteen years, a student of Nalanda 2 Coaching Centre, Bhoothnath Road, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna, went for coashing on14.11.2005 at 06.00 a.m., but, not returned in time. On enquiry, the informant learnt that Mamta Kumari has not gone to the Coaching Centre and in this connection a „sanha‟ was recorded. On, further, enquiry he learnt that Ravindra Kumar @ Suhan, son of Naresh Bhagat, who used to live in his house as a tenant for about ten months, but, on seeing his illicit character he got his house vacated, but, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 14.11.2005, said Ravindra Kumar, along with his father, mother, uncle and sister came and enticed away Mamta Kumari with intention to marry. The occurrence is of 14.11.2005 and the written report was given on 20.11.2005 and the first information report was lodged on 20.11.2005. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the first information report on the ground that during investigation the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which she has stated that Ravindra Kumar was a tenant in her house and there was marriage of 3 his sister and she has been to his house along with him to participate in the said marriage and his father learnt that she has been kidnapped and when she learnt about the case then she went to Daroga at the Police Station and from the Police Station she was produced in the Court where her statement was recorded. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, further, submits that the High Court at the stage of considering the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code not only look into the allegation made in the complaint, but, also the admitted fact as well as other admitted material or admitted document and for which has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R., 51 (Gurpeet Kaur @ Rinki Vrs. Vipin Kumar Gupta) and A.I.R. 1988 S.C., 709 (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vrs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.) that the Court should also take into consideration any special feature in particular case to consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to permit prosecution to continue and to test whether the uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establish the offence and by considering these materials, if the Court comes to an 4 opinion that the chance of an ultimate conviction is bleak, the prosecution case required to be quashed and, hence, contended that in view of the statement of the victim that she went along with accused at her own sweet will to attend the marriage o his sister and, hence, no useful purpose serve when the chance of conviction is bleak. 6. The learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the prayer and submits that there are materials to suggests that the offence alleged is made out as the age of the victim stated by her as well as assessed by the Court is sixteen years and she went along with Ravindra Kumar, as per her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, hence, offence under Sections 341, 361 and 363 of the Penal Code is made out and if the case is made out then quashing of the first information report, itself, is not sustainable. 7. However, it is well settled that the allegation made in the complaint if given on the face value and taken to be correct in it‟s entirety does not disclose an offence then the first information report may be quashed. However, allegation made in the fardbeyan or written report on the basis of which if the first information report 5 drawn made out an offence then it not required to be quashed. However, having regard to the allegation that the accused persons came and took the victim, a minor, aged fourteen years, and at this stage what is significant is taking of the minor and keeping her out of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the offence as the consent of the minor is irrelevant and in this regard it is relevant to quote two words of Section 361 of the Penal Code “takes” and enticed” is of much significance and the word “take” means to cause to go “escort” and “to get in possession” and when the accused take the minor with him whether she was willing or not, the act of taking is complete and the condition is satisfied and so when the accused take the girl along with him his taking her out of the father custody is complete and, hence, from the plain reading, itself, apparent that prima facie a case is made out. 8. However, taking into consideration the allegation made in the fardbeyan and even the statement of the victim, it can not be said that the allegation made does not make out an offence and, hence, the decisions relied upon 2008(1) P.L.J.R., 51 and A.I.R. 1988 S.C., 709 (supra) are not application and at this stage at the outset it 6 is not proper to quash the first information report, hence, I do not find substance for quashing the first information report and there is no merit in this application. The petitioner may raise the issue at the stage of framing of the charge. 9. This application is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)