IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.108 OF 2010 1. ROSHAN KUMAR, SON OF SHRI DINANATH PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF PANCH MANDIR CHOWK, THAKUR BARI ROAD, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUDARKAT, P.S. CHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 2. PINKI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SHRI AKHILESHWAR PRASAD YADAV OF VILLAGE KUDARKAT, P.S. CHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN……………………………………………….…………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CHAURADANO POLICE STATION, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 4. RANJAN KUMAR YADAV, SON OF SHRI AKHILESHWAR PRASAD YADAV OF VILLAGE KUDARKAT, P.S. CHAURADANO, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN……………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner no.2 is a lady who claims that she was married with a man who was staying in Nepal with his family and earning his livelihood. Since she was being ill-treated there, she ran away from Nepal and came to her parental home. After some time she decided to leave her parental home and come to Patna and at present she is residing here. Since she left her parental home without consent of her family members, brother of petitioner no.2 lodged a case of her kidnapping alleging that - 2 - she was minor and the case was lodged under Section 366A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code in which the informant alleged that petitioner no.1 had kidnapped her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.2 is major. In support of such claim, a photo copy of the certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board has been annexed as Annexure- 1. It is submitted that since she is major, she has right to lead her life as she chooses and, therefore, the case lodged in respect of her kidnapping is a false case. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 has been falsely implicated in this case, petitioners have filed compromise petition in the court below on which no orders have been passed. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, informant, submits that actually petitioner no.2 is under the influence of petitioner no.1 and is being coerced to act according to his wishes and under that coercion, she has filed compromise petition and she is being kept in confinement by petitioner.1. This fact cannot be verified in a - 3 - writ proceeding. Therefore, petitioner no.2 is directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari along with proof of her majority and make her statement. If necessary, S.P. shall get her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and notice her husband and in-laws also. After materials are received by him, he may issue necessary instructions to the Investigating Officer to take notice of the same and proceed with the investigation accordingly. For the purpose of appearance of petitioner no.2 before the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran at Motihari, she shall be given due protection. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)