IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.735 of 2009 REMI KUMARI @ BUCHHI, wife of Mukesh Kumar, resident of Village: Sikariya, P.S. Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. 3. The Officer-in-charge, Jehanabad P.S., District- Jehanabad. 4. The Officer-in-charge, Parasbigha P.S., District: Jehanabad. 5. Kishori Sharma, son of Late Maksudan Sharma. 6. Bimla Devi, wife of Kishori Sharma. Both respondent no. 5 and 6 are residents of village: Sikariya, P.S. Parasbigha, District: Jehanabad. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for restraining the respondents, particularly private respondent nos. 5 and 6 from filing one case after another against the petitioner and her husband, Mukesh Kumar, by respondent no.-5, Kishori Sharma, who is the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 5, Kishori Sharma, filed a false case under Section 363, 366, 366A, 379, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against Mukesh Kumar for abducting her. Learned counsel submits that she subsequently married Mukesh Kumar and in fact Mukesh Kumar did not abduct her. Learned counsel submits that thereafter respondent no.-6 Bimla Devi, mother of the petitioner, filed Jehanabad P.S. case no. 41 of 2008 under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code then again got another case lodged being Jehanabad P.S. case no.76 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband, by her cousin, Gautam Sharma. Learned counsel submits that she has given birth to a male child. Learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioner submits that the fact that petitioner is a major, has been noticed by this Court by order dated 26.02.2010, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13406 of 2009. Thus, learned counsel prays for directions to the private respondents not to lodge the case against the petitioner or her husband. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that on investigation, both Jehanabad P.S. case no. 41 of 2008 as well as Jehanabad P.S. case no. 76 of 2008 filed by respondent no.-5 and cousin of petitioner, have been found to be false. After taking into consideration the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may file appropriate application / representation in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, if respondent nos. 5 and 6 or her cousin files another case against her or her family members in near future. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)