IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18686 of 2007 BAIJAN ANSARI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7 26.9.2008 Heard Mr. Radha Raman Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this petition the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, in Cr. Revision No. 444 of 2003, whereby while dismissing the revision he has upheld and affirmed the orders dated 7.10.2003 and 14.10.2003, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 376, 420 and 504 I.P.C. in connection with Complaint Case No. 957 of 2003. As per the complaint case petitioner no. 1 in depth of night, when her guardians were away from the house, forcibly entered into the house of the complainant, Bibi Sakina, and forcibly ravished her. Thereafter the allurement of ravishing of Bibi Sakina continued unabated for sometime on assurance of marriage. Eventually when she conceived the petitioner no. 1 withdrew his assurances of marriage with her. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the victim girl being a major had consented to rape and as such no offence under section 376 or 420 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against petitioner no. 1. It has also been - 2 - submitted that the other petitioners namely 2 to 4 are in no way connected with the rape and therefore they cannot be prosecuted for offences under section 376 and 420 I.P.C. The allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are that when the father of the victim went to reason with them they abused him and suggested that the father should get the conceivement of his daughter medically terminated. This by itself would come within the ambit of an offence under section 504 I.P.C. When the complainant and her father have stated regarding the factum of rape which continued unabated for five months, I am not inclined to grant relief to the petitioners . Accordingly this application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of the petitioners, which is payable to the prosecutrix, as the application is frivolous and misconceived. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)