IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.948 of 2009 1. KHUSHBOO DEVI @ Khushboo Kumari Wife of Pankaj Kumar @ Saurabh 2. Pankaj Kumar @ Saurabh Son of Late Dinesh Rai, Both are resident of Village- Rajapakar, Police Station Rajapakar, District- Vaishali. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Homes, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur. 7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, Vaishali, Hajipur. 8. The Station House Officer, Rajapakar, Vaishali, Hajipur. 9. The Investigating officer of Rajapakar P.S. case no. 135 of 2009, Mahua, Vaishali. 10. Prabhat Ranjan Son of late Umeshwar Ranjan, resident of Village- Rajapakar, Chitragupta Nagar, Police Station Rajapakar, District Vaishali. . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 2/ 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner no.1 is niece of the informant, Prabhat Ranjan, who lodged a case under Section 341, 323, 365, 366 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his niece has been abducted by petitioner no.2 and others. The petitioner no.1 is the girl, who is said to have been abducted. Petitioner no.2 is the person, who is said to have abducted petitioner no.1. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that petitioner no.1 is 15 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a major. It is further stated that they have 2 married each other on their free own will at Sri Ram Janki Temple, Sonari Mandir, Pethia Par, Danapur Cantt, Patna, as per the Hindu Rites. A photo copy of the marriage certificate is annexed as Annexure-2. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ano., reported in 2006(3) PLJR SC 329 held that a major girl and boy are free to marry each other. Counsel for the State submits that the age of the victim girl is to be ascertained. Having heard the counsel for the parties. This Court observes as follows: The petitioners would appear before the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Mahua within a period of six weeks from today. It will be open for the petitioners to produce the documents in respect of their being major and of having been married to each other. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua in his discretion would also notice the prosecution side to state their version in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer may also direct the investigating officer to record the statement of the girl under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter the Sub- Divisional Police Officer would give necessary instruction to the investigating officer in the matter, who would conclude the investigation at the earliest. 3 No coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners for a period of six weeks to enable them to explain their cases. Let this order be sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Rajapakar P.S. case no.135 of 2009 through FAX at the cost of the petitioners. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)