IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39861 of 2009 1. MD.ANAITULLAH @ MD.ENAYTULLAH ANSARI 2. MD. ATAULLAH 3. MD. ERADAT HUSSAIN 4. MD. IMAMUDDIN ABOVE ALL ARE SONS OF MD. SALIM ANSARI @ MD. SALIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ETWARPUR TAJ, P.S. BOCHAHAON, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 5. MD. MAJID KHAN @ MAZID KHAN, SON OF AFJAL KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEWARIYA, P.S. DEWARIYA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. MOSTAQ, SON OF LATE YUNUS, RESIDENT OF MAHESHA FARAKPUR, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 4.5.2010 Md. Anaitullah @ Md. Enaytullah Ansari and Shahin Pravin @ Simmi Khatoon are present in Court. Both of them have married. Petitioner no. 1, the husband teaches in a Madarsa and Shahin Pravin @ Simmi Khatoon is living quite happily and she has a baby boy who is 2½ months old. Shahin Pravin @ Simmi Khatoon has categorically stated that her parents did not want her to marry the petitioner no. 1 because her family is Sheikh by caste whereas the husband is Ansari by caste. Shahin Pravin @ Simmi Khatoon is a major and she has stated that she has left her home voluntarily to marry Md. Anaitullah @ Md. Enaytullah Ansari. In the circumstances, it appears that no case is made out under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 2 is represented by Mr. Ibrahim Kabir. Once this Court has examined the boy and the girl in person and both of them have stated that they are living happily for the past three years and that the girl was neither kidnapped or forced to marry, this Court finds that it would be abuse of the process of law to allow 2 the criminal proceeding to continue in this case. In the result, this Court quashes the order dated 25.5.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Trial No. 616 of 2009, arising out of Runisaidpur P.S. Case No. 225 of 2007. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)