IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.641 of 2009 MUKUL SAHNI son of Arjun Sahni resident of Mohalla- Ashok Nagar Road no.14, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The City Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Officer-in-charge, Kankarbagh Police Station, Patna. 6. The Investigating officer in Kankarbagh Police Station case no. 96 of 2009. 7. Mohan Ram, son of Ram Swaroop Ram, resident of Village Sindhuara, P.S.-Chandi, District- Nalanda, at present resident of Mohalla- Ashok Nagar Road no.14, Lane No.4 (in the house of Kunal Rai), P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 05.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the First Information Report of Kankarbagh P.S. case no. 96 of 2009 dated 20.04.2009, filed by one Mohan Ram under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, who is a major and married one Babita Kumari on 18.04.2009, in the temple of Lord Shiva. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid Babita Kumari is aged about 20 years, and a major and voluntarily married him. The informant Mohan Ram, in the First Information Report alleged that his 14 years old daughter, Babita Kumari, has been abducted and he believes that the petitioner has abducted his minor daughter for the purpose of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has referred to statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of Babita Kumari where she stated her age as 18 years. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the girl was - 2 - medically examined and during medical examination the doctor has assessed her age as 17 years and also found her pregnant. It has further been stated that charge-sheet no. 243 dated 27.08.2009, has been submitted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that cognizance has been taken in this case and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ano. Reported in 2006(3)PLJR 329 SC. He further submits that in the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Apex Court had quashed the Sessions Trial. In the instant case, the prayer is for quashing the First Information Report. The police after investigation has already submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has also been taken in this case. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. The petitioner if aggrieved may move appropriate application against the order taking cognizance or framing of charge, as it may. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)