IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.384 of 2009 KUMARI BINDHYAVASINI SHARMA w/o Anuj Kumar Yadav @ Ashutosh Kumar and d/o Shri Jaidev Prasad Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Chuabagh, P.S. Kashim Bazar, District- Munger, presently residing at the house of the husband at Mohalla- Sandalpur, P.S. Kashim Bazar, District- Munger. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Munger. 3. The Officer Incharge, Kashim Bazar P.S., Munger. 4. Shri Jaidev Prasad Sharma s/o late Sakhi Chandra Mistri. 5. Shri Vinit Kumar Sharma s/0 Shri Jaidev Prasad Sharma. 6. ShriGopal Swaroop s/o Shri Sagar Sharma. All are residents of Mohalla- Chuabagh, P.S.Kashim Bazar , District- Munger. ----------- 3 8.12.2009 The present application has been filed by the alleged victim girl wherein she has complained that on false FIR, as lodged by her brother being Kashim Bazar P.S.Case no. 28 of 2009 under Section 366A IPC not only she is being harassed by the police but her husband and their relations are being harassed. She states that she is a major and out of her free will had married Anuj Kumar Yadav. The two belongs very two different communities and as such her marriage was not acceptable to her parents and her relations, which has led to instituting this false case. She was then presented while she was with her husband and brought to the Court and made to depose, which deposition was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Munger. She made serious allegation about the manner in which her deposition has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a certified copy of the said case, which clearly shows that immediately after the so called statement that was recorded u/s 164 2 Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate himself, she wrote on the order sheet that she wants to go back to her husband. This is serious contradiction with the statement as recorded. This Court had called for an explanation from the Judicial Magistrate, who has sent his explanation that what is recorded in the statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. is correctly and duly recorded and it is after seeing the same, the petitioner had signed it. I have no reason to disbelieve that but what is recorded in the statement is correct and true then that shows a total insensitivity on the part of the judicial officers apart from police, who are connected with this case that includes the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger. In the statement, as recorded, the Magistrate himself has assessed the age of victim girl to be 27 years. The girl has deposed her age to be 25 years. That itself should have led the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Magistrate concerned to order for closure of the case as a false case and order for institution of proceedings against the informant. Regrettably, the FIR having been lodged for allegedly kidnapping a minor girl, the police detained the girl. She was produced in Court and the Court assessed her age to be 27 years. She was then tortured and tormented and was made to face a Medical Board, which also recommends that she is between twenty two and twenty three years, yet there is a battle taken up for her custody when she wants to live with her husband. The insensitivity of the Court that the Court got involved in this litigation instead of relalizing that on 3 age being so determined, the very basis for FIR vanished into thin air. To the contrary, the FIR became a totally false information given to the police and deliberately. So the icing of the cake is that the case is supervised by high police officials who have seen the medical report still they found enough materials of filing chargesheet u/s 366A IPC .To remind the Judicial Officers and the Police I quote hereunder under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code: “ 366A. Procuration of minor girl- Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A bare reading of the aforesaid would show that it has application only when the victim is below 18 years, which admittedly and undisputedly the petitioner was not . Regrettably, the police and the judiciary became parties to this illegal action taken by none else then the brother of the victim girl. I say no more . The chargesheet having been filed, it is now upto the learned C.J.M.,Munger to pass order in accordance with law. The investigation being over, the police would be well advised to refrain from acting except with the orders of the Court . The alleged victim lady being an adult cannot be forced against her will to live at any particular place which choice is her choice. 4 With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)