IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.541 of 2011 1. Sharmila Kumari wife of Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan, daughter of Ramun Ram, resident of Village-Budhanpurva (Syndicate), P.S.-Buxar (Town), Distt-Buxar. 2. Ramashankar Ram @ Ramashankar Paswan, son of Kailash Paswan, resident of Village+P.O.-Arjunpur, P.S.-Buxar (Ind), Distt-Buxar. .........Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 4. The Dy. S.P., Buxar. 5. The Investigating Officer of concerned Buxar (Town), P.S., Distt.- Buxar. 6. Ramun Ram son of Jangali Ram, resident of Village-Budhanpurva (Syndicate), P.S.-Buxar (town), Distt-Buxar. .........Respondents ----------- 02 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Spouse claiming themselves to be major through instant petition prayed for quashing of First Information Report of Buxar Town P.S. Case No. 97 of 2011, registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, with other ancillary reliefs connected therewith on the ground that they being major have married with their free sweet will without any coercion and threat and so the written report furnished by the father of petitioner no. 1 Ramun Ram, the alleged victim Sharmila Kumari therefore is non-tenable in the eye of law. State has filed counter affidavit wherein at para 7 endorsed the fact that both of petitioners were/happens to be love bird. From Annexure-3, the admit card belonging to petitioner no. 1, Sharmila Kumari, the date of birth appears to be 11.07.1984, that means to say she had already crossed the barrier of 18 years. However, in 2 stead of appearing before the I.O., for getting herself examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as the case still happens to be under investigation, victim alongwith her husband has filed instant petition with relief whatever disclosed above. Though, they have claimed and further from Annexure-4, it is evident that they have got themselves married through legal way but no marriage certificate issued by the competent authority has been filed and in stead thereof Annexure-2 and a marriage deed unknown to any of the legal provision guiding the factum of marriage has been filed. As such, I do not feel inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners to quash the present existing First Information Report. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions reported in 2011 (1) B.B.C.J. 261 (Sahebi Khatoon @ Sahebi Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors), 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 474 (Sunil Kumar Singh son of Arjun Singh & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2010 (2) B.B.C.J. 247 (Antima Kumari @ Antima Pal & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) to support his submission. Fairly, none of the decisions speaks about quashing of First Information Report without having statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the statement of victim that means to say petitioner no. 1 has to be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Because of the fact that from Annexure-3, the date birth happens to be 11.07.1984 that means to say certainly she happens to be major one and further their affairs been recognized by the prosecution itself under para 7 of the counter affidavit. Therefore her wish will over saddle the dictum of others. As such, if she so desires, may present 3 herself before the police officials for getting herself examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Being a major and she has chosen the step out of her own free will which is to be legally protected and for that she will not be pressurized upon, apprehended, harassed and tortured by any one including the police. The investigation will further expected to be guided with the disclosure whatever being made by the victim herself during her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. With aforesaid observation, instant petition is disposed off. Safik (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)