CRIMINAL MISCELLENIOUS No. 10596 OF 2002 ******** (IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) ****** 1. SHRIKANT MISHRA, SON OF GAYANATH MISHRA 2. RAJ KISHORE MISHRA, SON OF MOHAN MISHRA 3. GAYANATH MISHRA, SON OF LATE BISHNU MISHHRA @ VISHWANATH MISHRA 4. RAJMATI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF GAYANATH MISHRA, WIFE OF RAJENDRA MISHRA 5. RAM KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF GAYA NATH MISHRA PETITIONER NOS. 1, 2, 3 AND 5 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANMALA, PETITIONER NO. 4 IS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUTAN, POLICE STATION MANJHAULIA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …………………………………………… …………….…………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUJEET KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF LATE LAXMI KANT MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATANMALA, POLICE STATION MANJHAULIA, DISTRICT WEST ……………………………………………………………...……….OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. S. N. P. SINHA, SR. ADV. MR. JITENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, ADVOCATE MR. MUKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. DEEPAK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- MR. B. K. M. TRIPATHY, ADVOCATE ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This application has been filed against the order dated 28.01.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 524 2 of 1996 by which the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah has rejected the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. While hearing this matter, the Court asked Sarita Devi and Shrikant Mishra to appear in person before this Court. They are present today and this Court has examined them and both of them submit that they are living together as wife and husband since 1996. It would appear that the girl is aged about 30-35 years of age whereas Shrikant Mishra submits that he is aged about 38 years. Shrikant Mishra submits that he is working in the Police Department and is financially capable to look after his wife Sarita Devi. 3. The occurrence has taken place in the year 1996. It is alleged that the petitioners are responsible for kidnapping of Sarita Devi. 4. Considering the fact that both concerned parties are living together in peace and leading a smooth married life together, it would be perversity of law to pursue this criminal case. Sarita Devi has categorically stated that she had left her house on her own accord. This Court has also come to a finding that she could not have been 14 years of age and a minor at the time when she left her house and accordingly, in my opinion, the offences alleged are not made out in the facts of this 3 case. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 28.01.2002 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 524 of 1996 is hereby quashed. 6. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 07th FEBRUARY, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND