IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1231 of 2009 1. FAIYAZ AHMAD, SON OF NOOR ALAM ANSARI 2. NOOR ALAM, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAQUE 3. HAZRA KHATOON, WIFE OF NOOR ALAM 4. FIRDOSE BEGUM, WIFE OF REZWANULLAH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE IJAMALI, P.S. BARHARIYA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 5. ANSHAD ANSARI, SON OF MOHARAM ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAKADI DURGAH, P.S. BARHARIYA, DISTRICT SIWAN --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVE. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SRI VARURESH KUMAR DUBE, SON OF NOT KNOWN, MITHANPURA, POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 5. SRI RAMASHIS MISHRA, SON OF NOT KNOWN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF MITHANPURA, P.S. CASE NO. 132/0/08, P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 6. INDU DEVI, WIFE OF SRI MITHLESH KUMAR @ MITHLESH KUMAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHADEVA, P.S. MUFFASIL (SIWAN), DISTRICT SIWAN. 7. SMIRITI PANDEY @ SAHIN, WIFE OF FAIYAZ AHMAD, DAUGHTER OF SRI MITHLESH KUMAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHADEVA, P.S. MUFFASIL (SIWAN), DISTRICT SIWAN. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 10 22.12.2009 Facts are sometimes stranger than fiction. A case was instituted by the informant alleging therein that her daughter Smiriti Pandey had been kidnapped by the husband- petitioner Faiyaz Ahmad for the purposes of marriage. Investigation was conducted. The girl remained with him for about eleven months and thereafter she was recovered. The husband-petitioner claims that he had validly married the girl under the Muslim law and has produced annexure-3 in support of his contention. The case of the opposite party no. 7 Smiriti Pandey is that she was always made to feel useless by her parents and she felt that they did not think much of her achievements and did not have faith in her ability and as such out of frustration and anger she left her home. On the way she met with the petitioner and both of them travelled to Gujrat where the petitioner was working and the 2 opposite party no. 7 Smiriti Pandey was also working as a teacher. Later the petitioner came to know that a case had been instituted against him for kidnapping the girl Smiriti Pandey and it is said that he took steps to procure a document to show that both were married. These facts came to be known to this Court when the Court issued notices to both the parties to be present in Court. Smiriti Pandey did not appear on the date fixed by the Court i.e. 14.12.2009 whereas the husband-petitioner appeared and claimed that he was married to Smiriti Pandey and wanted to live with her. The mother- informant appeared in Chambers and made a prayer before all that her daughter was now to be married and that she had no interest left in prosecuting the petitioner and further submitted that she had no interest also in pursuing the criminal case after knowing the real facts from her daughter. The mother Indu Devi also made a prayer that this Court may examine her daughter in camera without actually fixing a date in this case as she felt that it would cause great shame to her as there were many persons who are well known to their family who are practicing lawyers of this Court. This Court after considering the prayer of the mother and the interest of the girl and at the same time being conscious of the fact that Smiriti Pandey should not be terrorized by her parents into entering into a marriage or be forced to lead a life that she does not want to lead called her along with her mother on 21.12.2009 in Chambers. The facts as stated by Smiriti Pandey have been 3 enumerated above. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the parents of Smiriti Pandey i.e. the informant Indu Devi that they are no longer interested in pursuing the matter. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners who have come for quashing of the entire proceeding that Smiriti Pandey has refused to acknowledge that she was ever married to the petitioner and the fact that she has also admitted that she was not forced or induced by the petitioner to leave her house, no offence under Sections 363, 365, 366 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. Considering that both the parties do not have any objection to the orders which are being passed in their presence in Chambers, I direct that the entire proceeding of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 132 of 2008 shall stand quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)