IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.378 of 2010 Faiyaz Ahmad & Ors Versus State Of Bihar & Ors -------------- 7/ 15th Sept 2011 Petitioners/accused have filed instant Cr.Writ with a prayer to quash the FIR of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 registered under Section 366 of the IPC. As per allegation (Annexure-1) brought at the behest of Indu Devi, mother of alleged victim, Smirti Kumari aged about 21 years disclosing the fact that she was kidnapped on 2.2.2010 at 10.00 A.M. while she along with her son, Abhimanyu and the victim, Smirti Kumar was in a way to her residence over rickshaw. It is contented on behalf of the petitioners that similar nature of case was earlier instituted by the same informant for the same victim bearing Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 132/2008 whereupon Cr.Misc. No. 1231/09 was filed for quashing and after appearance of the respective parties, it was quashed on 22.12.2009. Further submitted that taking into account 2 the age of the victim itself disclosed in the FIR to be 21 years, being a major had solemnized Nikaah with petitioner no.1, Faiyaz Ahmad on 13th March 2008 out of her own free will after converting to Mohammedanism, therefore the instant FIR would not sustain and is liable to be quashed. To strengthen his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522 whereunder the majority of spouse has been taken a prime factor and subsequent steps taken by them was held to be duly recognized and protected by the Court of Justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned Government advocate submitted that it happens to be kidnapping of a girl to be minor or major and the assertions of the petitioners are not found favoured with the finding arrived at by this Court while disposing of Cr.Misc. No. 1231/2009 though the FIR was quashed. From the order passed in Cr. Misc.1231 of 2009 dated 22.12.2009, I would like to quote the relevant findings of the Court which is as follows: 3 “On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners who have come for quashing of the entire proceeding that Smiriti Pandey has refused to acknowledge that she was ever married to the petitioner and the fact that she has also admitted that she was not forced or induced by the petitioner to leave her house, no offence under Sections 363, 365, 366 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him”. Considering that both the parties do not have any objection to the orders which are being passed in their presence in chambers, I direct that the entire proceeding in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case no.132 of 2008 pending in the court of shall stand quashed This application is allowed”. That means to say the aforesaid order also speaks that the victim had not conceded with or approved the submission and the facts with regard to marriage in between her along with petitioner no.1, Faiyaz. Therefore, I do not see it a fit case at this proper juncture wherein application of 226/227 of the Constitution should be invoked. Consequent thereupon, the petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)