IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16588 of 2008 SHANTI DEVI, W/O LBHOLA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIJULKI, P.S. HALSI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.7.2010. Heard Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner, who is informant in Halsi P.S. Case No.18 of 2008 registered under Sections 364, 384, 386, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for quashing of order dated 22.2.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai to the extent whereby the learned Magistrate has set the victim girl at liberty and learned Magistrate has not accepted the plea of the petitioner that the victim girl may be handed over to the informant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that the victim girl, who is daughter of the informant, was on the date of passing of the impugned order, was minor. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-4 to the 2 petition, which is a copy of School Leaving Certificate in which the date of birth has been mentioned as 30.12.1993. It has been submitted that on the date of the impugned order, the victim girl was aged 15 years and, accordingly, the learned Magistrate was not required to release the victim without handing over her custody to the informant. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has brought a copy of statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the victim had disclosed her age as 21 years. Annexure-2A is the copy of medical report which shows that during the medical examination, the victim was found as 21 years old. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate, after examining the medical report as well as considering the age of the victim recorded in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has passed the impugned order and set the victim at liberty without handing over her custody to the informant. 3 N.H./ This Court is satisfied that while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)