IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2417 of 2008 MD.SALLAUDDIN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 07 05.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 20.12.2006 in Pipra P.S. Case No. 30 of 2006, arising out of Complaint Case No. 2335 of 2005 under Sections 364, 364A, 365, 367, 368 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be affirmed on 6.6.2007 in Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2007. Learned counsel submits that Pipra P.S. Case No. 122 of 2006 was lodged by petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and others for abduction of his minor daughter under Sections 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for an occurrence on 18.11.2005. Cognizance has been taken therein and the opposite party no.2 and other accused are facing trial. In that case the opposite party no.2 has filed an application on 9.8.2007 that the daughter of petitioner no.1 was a major on the basis of her age claimed as 23 years or as assessed by the Medical 2 Board to be 18 years or 20 years. That the daughter of petitioner no.1 on by her own free will married with the son of opposite party no.2 and that they were living as man and wife. The opposite party no.2 accepts her as her daughter-in-law and does not consider conducive to allow her to go back to her parents house. Contrary to the aforesaid specific statements made by her, she then filed the present Complaint Case No. 2335 of 2005 on 28.11.2005, alleging the date of occurrence as 18.11.2005 stating that her minor son aged 14 years went away with the daughter of petitioner no.1 and has become traceless. The submission is that in the subsequent complaint case the opposite party no.2 conceals the matrimonial relationship between the alleged victim boy and the daughter of petitioner no.1, which opposite party no.2 explicitly acknowledges in her petition dated 9.8.2007 in Pipra P.S. Case No. 122 of 2006. The frivolousness of the allegations in the complaint was thus apparent. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that her son was till traceless. He then refers to paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit filed today, that the opposite party no.2 was an illiterate lady and she had made the submissions in the 3 petition dated 9.8.2007 as advised by the Lawyer acknowledging again that the daughter of petitioner no.1 was living with her son as man and wife. She then goes to say in the said paragraph that she has no objection in keeping the daughter of petitioner no.1 as her daughter-in-law in the house. It is lastly submitted that Final Form, mistake of fact, has been submitted in Pipra P.S. Case No. 122 of 2006. This Court on consideration of the submissions on behalf of the parties and the vacillating stand taken by the opposite party no.2 at different times contrary to each other, is satisfied that it shall not be in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution of the petitioners in Pipra P.S. Case no. 30 of 2006 to continue. The inconsistency in the case of the opposite party no.2 are glaring. She states that the daughter of petitioner no.1 was her daughter-in- law acceptable to her, married to her son. She then files a fresh complaint alleging abduction of her son, concealing the matrimonial relationship of her son with the daughter of petitioner no.1. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. she does a somersault action and is now willing to keep the daughter of petitioner no.1 as her daughter in law. 4 The entire proceedings in Pipra P.S. Case No. 30 of 2006 against the petitioners pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Motihari is thus quashed. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)