IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53123 of 2008 1. NASIRUDDIN @ NASIRUDDIN LAHERI, SON OF ZAHIR LAHERI 2. ZAHIR LAHERI, SON OF LATE JANRAT LAHERI, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHIYARA, P.S. SAHIYARA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI.-- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SITAM RAM RAUT, SON OF LATE HARE LAL RAUT, VILL+PS SAHIYARA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. – OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioners :- Mr. M.S. Hoda, Advocate Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate ----------- 3 18.2.2010 A case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 Sitam Ram Raut who is the father of the alleged victim girl Neelam Devi against Nasiruddin @ Nasiruddin Laheri and petitioner no. 2 who is the father of Nasiruddin @ Nasiruddin Laheri under Sections 363, 366(A) and 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is that Nasiruddin @ Nasiruddin Laheri is said to have kidnapped his daughter after threatening her with a weapon and he apprehends that his daughter would be raped and killed by the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the case was instituted and investigation made. Finally the Court took cognizance vide order dated 27.8.2007. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the alleged victim girl namely Neelam Devi @ Shakina Khatoon and Nasiruddin @ Nasiruddin Laheri are married and are living happily in Delhi. It is further stated that they have a son who is about two years old. On 27.11.2009 when the matter was heard both the parties were present in Court along with their son Salamat Alam who is two years old. The Court examined them in Chambers and on examination it was obvious that Neelam Devi @ Shakina Khatoon 2 was a major and she has specifically stated before the Court in the presence of the counsel that she had fallen in love with petitioner no. 1 and both of them had run away from home, and because it was inter religious marriage the father of the victim girl was not ready to allow the victim girl to marry petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1, on the other hand, has stated that he is working as a Tailor and makes readymade clothes and he finds it impossible to go to his village because of the pendency of the present case. This Court issued notice to opposite party no. 2 who has appeared through his counsel, however, no body has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to oppose this application. I find that since the girl is major and that they have a son out of wedlock, there is no purpose in allowing this criminal proceeding to continue. As a result, I quash the order of cognizance dated 27.8.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 8 of 2007 giving rise to G.R. Case No. 310 of 2007. This application is, thus, allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)