IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24023 of 2007 TUNNA @ BIMLESH KUMAR, Son of Sudhakar Singh, resident of Village-Shadai, Police Station Hathoudi, District-Muzaffarpur, at present residing at Mohalla-Naya Tola, Police Station-Kaji Mohammadpur, District-Muzaffarpur………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Bashishtha Narayan Thakur, Son of Bhagwat Thakur, resident of Mohalla-Krishnatoli, Police Station Brahmapura, District- Muzaffarpur. …………………………Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate. -------------- 4. 20.10.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner, through this application, prays for the quashing of the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, whereunder he has taken cognizance under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B I.P.C against the petitioner in connection with Brahampura P.S Case No.66 of 2004. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim girl is his cousin (Mauseri Bahan) and she of her free will and volition accompanied him to Delhi where she indulged in sexual activities with him and also married him. On this premise, it was submitted that since the victim girl was a major and joined him of her free will and volition, no offence either under Sections 366, 376, 363 or 120-B I.P.C. could be said to have been made out against the petitioner. - 2 - From the statement of the victim girl, Priyanka Kumari, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that while her guardians were away from home, the petitioner had approached her and requested her to accompany him to Patna and when she refused, the petitioner threatened her with the story that if she did not accompany him he would shoot himself to death and it was under this fear psychosis that she had accompanied the petitioner. She has further stated that she had initially been taken to Kolkata and lodged in a hotel where the petitioner started coercing her to enter into marriage with him which she refused on the ground that the permission of her parents was necessity before she could contact marriage. It was again on threat of the same nature, namely, that the petitioner would shoot himself, that she was taken to the Kali Temple where the marriage was solemnized only by exchanging garlands and that too in the absence of a priest. It has also been stated that thereafter she was taken to Delhi and lodged in a house where her modesty was ravished by the petitioner. However, she was not in a position to say that whether she was pregnant or not. From her statement, it appears that the victim girl was forced into marriage. It also appears that in the absence of Saptapadi the alleged marriage could never have taken place and was void since it was merely by way of exchanging garlands. The Supreme Court in several decisions has stated that unless there is Saptapadi there can be no valid marriage. From the impugned order, it appears that there is more than - 3 - sufficient materials in the case diary to show the complicity and implication of the petitioner in the commission of the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B I.P.C. and he has rightly taken cognizance and such orders cannot be interfered with. This application for quashing is misconceived and in the circumstances the filing of this application is an abuse of the process of the court which is accordingly dismissed and the petitioner is imposed a cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be payable to the informant. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)