IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.441 OF 2007 AND PRIYANKA ROY @ PRIYANKA KUMARI CR. WJC NO.1051 OF 2007 NIRANJAN KUMAR ROY @ LALU, BIMILA DEVI, MOISAM DEVI @ RAHUA BALI, CHANDAN KUMAR, AMERESH KUMAR ROY AND AJAY KUMAR. VERSUS STATE AND ORS. ----------- 5 22.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the State in both writ petitions. Petitioners have come to this court for quashing of the FIR bearing Bagaha ps case no. 52 of 2007 dated 19.4.2007 registered for offences under sections 363. 365 and 366A of the penal code by mother of petitioner in Cr WJC No. 441 of 2007 against petitioners in Cr WJC No. 1051 of 2007, who are husband and in-laws of the earlier. It is alleged in the FIR that petitioner Niranjan Kumar Roy with the aid of his family members kidnapped the minor daughter of informant, namely, Priyanka Roy alias Priyanka Kumari with intention to marry her or for committing some offence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that petitioner Priyanka Roy, daughter of informant aged more than eighteen years at her own sweet will married petitioner Niranjan Kumar in a temple. It is also submitted that parties are major and as such they are aged above the permissible limit of marriage. They asserted that the allegation that they (Priyanka Roy and Niranjan Kumar) descend the same ancestors and are within the prohibited zone of marriage is also not correct. Learned counsel submits that in the facts of the case no offence under sections 363, 365 and 366A of the Penal Code is made out as both of them married each other on their volition. In support of their - 2 - submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2006(3) PLJR (SC) 329, paragraphs 14 and 18. He also placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 10.1.2008, made in the case of Manorma Devi and others Vs State of Bihar and others, passed in Cr WJC Nos 603 and 570 of 2007. It is submitted by the informant that petitioner Priyanka Kumari was minor at the relevant time and petitioner Niranjan Kumar with the help of his family members kidnapped her for wrong reasons. He further submitted that as parties are Sapindas, there is no chance of marriage under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. In the facts of the case, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR. However, it is observed that petitioners may appear before the Investigating agency with the necessary papers in support of their claim of being major and if the I.O. finds the assertions made by the petitioners are correct, he would take the investigation to its logical conclusion in light of observations of Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. No coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners as above for four weeks in Mohididinagar PS case no. 52 of 2007 dated 19.4.2007 so that they appear before the IO and produce documents/evidence in support of their claims. Let this order be faxed to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioners. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).