IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27318 of 2009 Rashid Nawaz @ Ash Mohammad, S/O-Abdul Shakoor, R/O-Mohalla- Brahampura, Mehdi Hasan Road, Police Station-Brahampura, District- Muzaffarpur …………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Investigating Officer, Brahampura, Police Station, Muzaffarpur 5. Urmila Devi, W/O-Sri Suraj Saw, R/O-Mohalla-Saraswati Chowk, Police Station-Brahampura, District-Muzaffarpur ………….Opposite Parties. ----------- 05 08.09.2011 An affidavited petition along with Vakalatnama is filed on behalf of Soni Kumari @ Soni Nawaz @ Nigar Fatma who has executed her power in favour of Md. Harun Quraishi, Advocate. The above stated Soni Kumari @ Soni Nawaz @ Nigar Fatma appeared before this Court with her three children and accepted the Vakalatnama executed by her in favour of Md. Harun Quraishi. She also accepted that she had voluntarily solemnized her marriage with petitioner Rashid Nawaz @ Ash Mohammad against the will and wishes of her natal people. She also stated that now she is leading her married life happily and peacefully with the petitioner Rashid Nawaz @ Ash Mohammad and she has no grievance against her husband as well as his other family members. This Court had asked the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 5 to produce the Opposite Party No. 5 before this Court so that she could identify the above stated Soni Kumari @ Soni Nawaz @ Nigar Fatma but learned counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar appearing for Opposite Party No. 5 stated that he tried his best to contact the Opposite Party No. 5 but he could not succeed to trace her 2 out and on account of the aforesaid reason he is not in a position to produce the Opposite Party No. 5 before this Court. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order dated 13.03.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 159 of 2002/Trial No. 228 of 2007 arising out of Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 by which and whereunder cognizance under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken after submission of the charge- sheet in the above stated Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002. It would appear from perusal of the record that Opposite Party No. 5, who is informant in Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002, gave her Ferdbeyan on 19.01.2002 to this effect that in previous night petitioner along with four unknown persons forcibly entered into her house and took away her daughter, namely, Soni Kumari aged about 14 years. After two hours of the alleged occurrence, her husband came to home. She narrated the entire story and after that an alarm was raised which attracted the neighbouring people and after that her husband went to Police Station along with her and she narrated the entire incident to police official. On the basis of Ferdbeyan of informant (Opposite Party No. 5), Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 was registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and, thereafter, cognizance was taken in the manner as stated above passing impugned order against which this quashing petition has been preferred. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that according to prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2002 and at the time of alleged occurrence victim was minor but now much water has already flown in river Ganga and the petitioner as well as victim are standing before this Court in the year 2011. It is also contended by him that the victim has already solemnized her marriage with petitioner and, as a matter of fact, she was in love with petitioner and she eloped with the petitioner and subsequently, she solemnized her marriage with petitioner by her own sweet will. So, even if, it assumed that at the time of alleged occurrence, the victim was minor but then also, admittedly, now she has already become major and her marriage with petitioner is being endorsed by her at present and, therefore, the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but only an abuse of process of the law. Learned counsel appearing for the victim also echoed the submissions as advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 5 with certain hesitation accepted the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as victim. Considering the above stated facts as well as submissions, particularly, keeping in mind that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2002 and now the victim has already become major and she is giving her seal on her marriage and furthermore, the continuance of the proceeding would not bring any fruit in future, I 4 think it proper to quash the order dated 13.03.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 159 of 2002/Trial No. 228 of 2007 arising out of Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.03.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No. 159 of 2002/Trial No. 228 of 2007 arising out of Brahampura P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 is, hereby, quashed. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court for needful. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)