IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.470 of 2009 1. ANTIMA KUMARI @ ANTIMA PAL, W/O SUBIR KUMAR PAL. 2. SUBIR KUMAR PAL @ SHANTU, S/O LATE BINAY KUMAR PAL. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-GILAM PARA, DUMKA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-DUMKA. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE LAKHISARAI, P.S.- LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. 3. INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF BARAHIA P.S. CASE NO. 71/09. 4. BHIM SINGH, S/O NAKO SINGH, R/O BARAHIA (TOWARDS DUKHHARAN) P.S.-BARAHIA WARD NO. 17, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 04.02.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners, who claim to be husband and wife, have filed this writ application for quashing of the FIR instituted by father of petitioner no. 1 alleging about her kidnapping by the accused persons. In the FIR he claimed that petitioner no. 1 is minor. Therefore, on this complaint, the case was instituted under Sections 366, 366(A) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the writ application, photocopies of the Admit Card of petitioner no. 1 as well as school leaving certificate are annexed from which it appears that petitioner’s 2 date of birth is 05.03.1980. Thus, on 8.4.2009, i.e. alleged date of occurrence, she will be 29 years of age. Annexure-4 is a marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer of Durgapur Municipality Sub-Division certifying that the petitioners had married on 29th May, 2009. This information has been furnished to the Officer In-charge of Barhaiya Police Station by an advocate on behalf of petitioner no. 1. The documents amply show that petitioner no. 1 is major and had married with petitioner no. 2 on her own volition. A counter affidavit has been filed in which general denial has been made and the only dispute which has been raised is with regard to the registration of marriage of the petitioners before the Special Marriage Officer, Durgapur, West Bengal, on the ground of jurisdiction. The Investigating Officer or police authority have no jurisdiction to question the validity of the marriage registered by a competent Special Marriage Officer. It is a matter of Court which has to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. So far as age of petitioner no. 1 is 3 concerned, there is no denial in the counter affidavit that her date of birth is 05.03.1980. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter is still under investigation. This Court is of the view that since the police has still to complete the investigation and submit a final report, this Court should not interfere in the matter at this stage. However, it goes without saying that proof of age of petitioner no. 1 produced before the police through the petition sent to the Officer In-charge through registered post, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-5, must be taken into account by the Officer Incharge for submission of final report in the case. Till that is done, the petitioners require adequate protection against any harassment, humiliation at the hands of police administration or the parental family of petitioner no. 1. Therefore, this Court restrains the police as well as the parental family of petitioner no. 1 from interfering with independent movement of petitioner no. 1 and prohibiting her from staying at any place of her 4 choice and pursue her daily routine and occupation, if any. If required, petitioner no. 1 should agree for recording her statement under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. for which, if she applies before the concerned S.P., she should be given adequate protection. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)