IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38091 of 2009 ASHOK RAM @ ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, Son of Late Parmeshwar Ram alias Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Village and Police Station- Karai Parsurai, District- Nalanda...........................................................Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.....................................................Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Ravi Ranjan, Advocates. For the O.P. : None. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 12.01.2010. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. The informant of this case is the father of Manju Kumari i.e., the victim girl and he has alleged that Neetu Kumari and Sheela Devi had come to his house and the informant’s daughter Manju Kumari aged about 14 years had left with them. Thereafter, the girl is not traceable. During investigation, it has come that this petitioner, who is the Mukhiya, also helped the accused persons in kidnapping the girl. Subsequently, the girl Manju Kumari was recovered and she has made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Annexure-3) in which she has stated that her father i.e., the informant and other persons had forced her into prostitution. She further stated that her father alongwith others had tried to sell her to one Ajay Sah for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. She claimed that when she learnt that she was sold to Ajay Sah, she run away with her neighbour Mukesh Rai with whom she was in love for past several years. The girl has made direct allegation against her father and others. 2 The victim girl, Manju Kumari filed a complaint case which is Annexure-4, making specific allegation against all the persons who are forced her to have sex with them. She has stated in the complaint petition that she married to one Mukesh Rai at Shitla Mandir at Agam Kuan, Patna, and she does not want to go back to her parents. Unfortunately, Manju Kumari died subsequently due to some incurable diseases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case diary indicates that this petitioner was not involved in forcing the victim girl to prostitution and he is not responsible in enticing or kidnapping the victim girl. The victim girl has stated that she fled away with Mukesh Rai and has not uttered a single word against this petitioner. Apart from the statement of the complainant, it transpires that this petitioner was also not involved in the alleged kidnapping. None of the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. The investigation, therefore, does not support the allegation made against the petitioner. The court taking cognizance does not have any reason for holding that the petitioner was guilty of an offence under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The purpose of investigation is to try and find out the truth of the matter and the manner in which accused persons are involved in the said crime. In this case, there is no evidence against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I quash the order dated 23.06.2009 taking cognizance against the petitioner in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 370 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 Hilsa. This application is, accordingly, allowed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,j)