CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5294 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 1. NASIM AHMAD S/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 2. MAKSOOD ALAM S/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 3. KHRAISHA BIBI W/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 4. MD. YASIN S/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 5. MAJAMIL HUSSAN S/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 6. MAQBOOL AHMAD S/O SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN 7. SADIQUE HUSSAIN @ SARDAR MIAN S/O LATE NOOR MOHAMAD, ALL RESIDENT OF MALI TOLA, P.S. MANJHI, DISTT. SARAN ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAGHUNATH PD. @ KHYALI S/O SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MANJHI DAKHAN TOLA, P.S. MANJHI, DISTRICT SARAN …… OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. For opposite party No.2 : Mr. Shambhu Prasad, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 26.8.2003 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran has taken cognizance for offences u/ss. 366(A)/34 I.P.C. disagreeing with the final report dated 15.6.2003 in Manjhi P.S.case No.21 of 2003. On 9.9.2004 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and further proceeding in the court below was stayed. On 1.2.2006 a submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that in fact the victim Shobha Kumari was 2 living with the petitioner no.1 and thereafter on 14.2.2006 when nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 this matter was admitted for hearing. All along the further proceeding in the court below had remained stayed. Today no one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, the Counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present in court. The case of the opposite party no.2 is that his minor daughter Shobha Kumari had been kidnapped by the petitioner no.1 for purposes of marriage. On going through the petition, I find that the victim was examined for her age estimation by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital and it was reported that she was 18 to 21 years of age. Her matriculation certificate also showed her date of birth as 28.3.1983 making her 20 years of age on the date of occurrence. The victim was allegedly also examined u/s.164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she was an adult and she had gone to Delhi with petitioner no.1 on her own sweet will and the case of kidnapping had wrongly been instituted by her father. There is document to suggest that the petitioner no.1 and the victim got married to each other on 9.5.2003 and a certificate was granted by the court in regard to the same. On the basis of such materials the Investigating Officer on 15.6.2003 submitted a final report 3 in the matter but the Magistrate disagreeing with the same took cognizance. From the averments made in the petition filed herein it is evident that no offence u/s.366(A)/34 I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons since the girl was a major and she stated in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone with the petitioner no.1 voluntarily. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.8.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran in Manjhi P.S.case No.21 of 2003 is quashed. Patna High Court Dated,15th July,2010. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )