CRIMINAL REVISION No.622 OF 2005 ------ Against the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Purnea in Cr.Revision no. 486 of 2001 setting aside the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 764 of 1999. ---- MD LAIQUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUS SAMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAKKA, P.S.AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA ------------------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JALIL ALIAS JHALLO SON OF LATE SHEIKH ULFAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAKKA, P.S.AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA ------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ****** For the petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Singh, Sr. Advocate With Mr.Dhaneshwrar Prasad Gupta For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For Opposite Party no.2: Dr Amrendra Kumar With Mr. Nadimul Hasan ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH M.Singh,J. This application is directed against the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Purnea in Cr. Revision no. 486 of 2001 setting aside the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, - 2 - Purnea in Complaint Case No. 764 of 1999. 2. A complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant’s wife deserted him. Thereafter to discharge his liability regarding his girl Rabina Khatoon aged about 16-17 years, he handed over her in custody of Laiqur Rahman, petitioner of this case for working to him as maid. After one year he came back but his daughter was not returned back to him. He was apprehending that there was possibility of disposal of his girl for prostitution or for immoral purpose. 3. To corroborate the allegation he examined three enquiry witnesses but the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint petition finding no prima facie case that was challenged in revision that was allowed also but some mistake has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge who decided the revision. 4. A document filed on behalf of the petitioner was taken into consideration that was a complaint filed on behalf of victim girl Rabina Khatoon against Atiqur Rahman about committing rape upon her, becoming pregnant and - 3 - attempt on his behalf to kill. 5. Kidnapping, if any, was disbelieved by learned Magistrate that complainant himself handed over the victim girl to the petitioner and that was followed by the statement made by enquiry witness that as per C.W.2 she married this petitioner and as per statement of C.W.3 the victim girl married the petitioner and she was blessed with a child also. Really it was a question to be decided once the girl was given in lawful custody of the petitioner no question arises about becoming of custody unlawful that also after becoming major of the girl. 6. Apart from it complaint case no. 817/2002 filed on behalf of victim girl was brought on record by complainant himself indicating that he was relying on the document that was accepted also by the Revisional Court. 7. That became part of the inquiry that is the statement of the victim girl herself in which she made every allegation against Atiqur Rahman that means to say that the story alleged by the complainant corroborated by his witnesses were false, not truth. There is misconception of learned - 4 - Additional Sessions Judge that he wrote Atiqur Rahman as the petitioner which is Laiqur Rahman. 8. In the result, this criminal revision application is allowed. The order dated 8.7.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Purnea in Criminal Revision no. 486/01 setting aside the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 764 of 1999 is set aside. While the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.7.2001 dismissing Complaint Case No. 764 of 1999 is confirmed. (Mandhata Singh,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED: 06-08-2009 AI/A.F.R.