IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7146 of 2010 1. SHIVENDRA BHAGAT. 2. UPENDRA BHAGAT. BOTH OF SONS OF HARBANSHI BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUTUBPUR DIGHRA, P.S.-BIDUPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 3. MAHENDRA CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE MACHU CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KOYARI, POLICE STATION-GANGA BRIDGE, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. …..PETITIONERS. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 22.09.2011 Supplementary Counter affidavit along with certified copy of order passed in Cr. Misc. No.18290 of 2009 has also been produced and is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Informant has also appeared on its own. Having the copy of the counter affidavit served upon the petitioners. Simple prayer is for quashing of order dated 30.01.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Vaishali at Hajipur passed in Sessions Trial No.478 of 2009 arising out of Hajipur Town P.S. Case no.107 of 2009 whereby and where under the learned court below had rejected the prayer of the petitioners purported to be filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Simple submission is that in spite of having an allegation of kidnapping / abducting the victim, Saraswati Devi from lawful guardianship, she during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. discredited the same and volunteered that she on her own had left and got herself married with Shivendra Bhagat . She had disclosed 2 her age at 20 years. In written report also her age figures as 20 years. Therefore, irrespective of their common pedigree which prohibits marriage being close agnate, the girl being major was fully competent to decide her future and live with particular individual brushing aside sermons of elders of her family which, the victim had done. Consequent thereupon the rejection of petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned lower court appears to be in utter violation of law. At the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the prayer and submitted that from the conduct of the victim, as is evident from para-39 of the C.D. she on her own had turned up at the P.S. and further paras, it is evident that her physical appearance has been taken into consideration by the I.O. soon after her examination under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as is evident from para-45 of the C.D., the victim had filed petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the following day explaining the events where under she had made statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as evident from para-57 of the case diary. Para-59 of the case diary happens to be her statement which she gave in accordance with Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. contradicting the version whatever she had under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the informant though not being impleaded as party and now, at the present juncture should not be, but the disclosure whatever been made by him and which had not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, happens to be that at earlier occasion, petitioners have come up for quashing of the 3 proceeding wherein the victim had her physical presence and had refuted the disclosure and assertions made by the petitioners supporting the case of kidnapping and which ultimately led dismissal of aforesaid writ bearing Cr.W.J.C. No.494/2009. Thereafter, another Cr. Misc. No.18290 of 2009 was filed by victim herself to discredit / erase her 164 statement which has also been disposed of with an observation that the said statement is not binding upon the victim and giving a liberty to explain the circumstances where under it was made at the relevant time. It has further been submitted that charge had already been framed and one P.W. has already been examined. At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that victim had already been married at different place where she is living and enjoying happy marital life. Subsequent involvement will really decipher her future life. Be that as it may, taking into account the inconsistencies prevailing in between the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. followed with 161 of the Cr.P.C. supported by other surrounding circumstances which I have already recorded from the case diary itself. I do not see it a fit case wherein the prayer of the petitioners should be acceded with. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners is rejected. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise the plea and brought up on record if so legally advised. Any observation so made in this order will not prejudice the interest of the petitioners. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)