IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1202 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Against the orders dated 16.03.2000 and 23.11.2000, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in G.R. No. 166 of 1999 arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 46 of 1999. ====================================================== 1. Ram Sakhi Devi wife of Sri Mahadeo Mahto, resident of Village-Urain, P.S.-Kajara, District-Lakhisarai. 2. Rajendra Mahto son of late Dashrath Mahto, resident of Village-Diha, P.S.-Ariyari, District-Shekhpura. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Maheshwar Mahto son of late Dhuro Mahto, resident of Village+P.O.-Urain, P.S.-Kajara, District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ========================================================== = Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. O.P. Maharaj, Adv. For the State : Smt. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. ===================================================== PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA R.K. Mishra, J: This application, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 16.03.2000, passed in G.R. No. 166 of 1999 arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 46 of 1999 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, taking cognizance of the offence under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners and also the order dated 23.11.2000, passed in aforesaid case by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners not to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners in the light of the statement of the victim girl, as recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, later on. 2. It appears that on the basis of the report dated 10.03.1999 of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1202 of 2001 dt.20-12-2011 2 opposite party no. 2, Maheshwar Mahto, Surajgarha Police Station Case No.46 of 1999 was instituted under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners, which was lodged by opposite party no. 2/informant, Maheshwar Mahto, alleging that on 22.01.l999, he had gone at field in the morning for doing the agriculture work and when he return at house, he was informed by his wife that his daughter, Gayatri Devi, aged about 13 years is missing. Thereafter he started searching of his daughter, Gayatri Devi, and came to know from his co-villager, Niwas Singh, that his daughter was seen with Ram Sakhi Devi wife of Mahadeo Mahto, and her son-in-law Rajendra Mahto near Urain Railway Station. The other co-villagers namely, Kartik Mahto, Tilon Mahto, Vijay Mahto, Uttam Mahto and Bhuloho Mahto had stated the similar fact. The police, on investigation, submitted charge-sheet under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, took cognizance of offence under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code on 16.03.2000, with order to summon the accused petitioners. Later on, the police recovered the victim girl, Gayatri Devi, whose statement was recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which she denied about her kidnapping and then the application was filed on behalf of accused-petitioners to recall the order of taking the cognizance dated 16.03.2000 in the light of the statement of victim girl, as recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners made submission that in the First Information Report, as lodged on 10.03.1999 by the opposite party no. 2, the occurrence is said to be on 22.01.1999. Prior to lodging the First Information Report the opposite party no. 2 had filed the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1202 of 2001 dt.20-12-2011 3 application before the Officer-in-Charge of Kajara police station on 28.01.1999 about missing of his daughter, Gayatri Kumari, but he has not disclosed the name of the petitioners. Moreover, the victim girl in her statement after recovery by the police has refused about her kidnapping by any one, which would appear from Annexure-5 to this application. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that initially, the application was filed by opposite party no. 2 on 22.01.1999, regarding missing of his daughter, Gayatri Kumari, on 28.01.1999 in the police station Kajara without disclosing the name of any one as accused. Later on, he lodged Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 46 of 1999 under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners. Annexure-5 is the statement of victim girl, Gayatri Kumari, as recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 10.05.2000, in which she has denied about her kidnapping by any one. As such, criminal proceeding against the accused-petitioners amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the victim girl, Gayatri Kumari, as recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which she refused about her kidnapping, the order dated 16.03.2000, passed in G.R. No. 166 of 1999 arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 46 of 1999 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed and, accordingly, the application is allowed. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 20th of December, 2011. Safikurrahaman/N.A.F.R.