IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10222 of 2007 MAHAVIR RAUT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 2.9.2008. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar “Munna” the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Ranjan Jha, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Dr. Mayanand Jha, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner through this application has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Banka P.S. Case No.94 of 2006, G.R. No.358 of 2006. The facts of the case can be culled out from the written report submitted by Devendra Mishra, the informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2. According to him while his only daughter, Pratiksha Kumari, aged about 15 years, used to go for tuition to the house of Manoj Babu, she used to be followed by Mayanand Bharti alias Munna Bharti of which Pratiksha had complained to him. It is said that on 6.3.2006 at about 6 P.M. while Pratiksha was loitering in front of the gate, Munna seduced and abducted her with intention to marry her. When she did not return a search was made for her in course whereof they visited the house of Mahavir Mandal, the father of Munna, where Mayanand was also present and they gave out that his daughter would be returned soon but she never returned. Munna was later found absconding. Further searches at the house of relatives and friends were made in course whereof it transpired that it was Munna who had kidnapped Pratiksha and the name of his father and the brothers also figured for having connived in the crime. The delay - 2 - in lodging the complaint is said to be due to the search which they were making for Pratiksha. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that Munna and Pratiksha , both surrendered in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who refused to take them into custody and directed the victim girl to approach the police. It has also been submitted that the victim girl was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Banka, for her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she claimed to be a major and also claimed to have married Munna of her free will and volition and wanted to live with him. She also refused to live with her parents. However, it is alleged that the police applied third degree torture and took an application from Pratiksha to the effect that she wanted to live with her parents and on the same day the custody of the victim girl was handed over to her parents. The learned counsel further sought to submit that according to medical examination she was found to be aged between 18 to 21 years and her birth certificate indicated her date of birth as 6.11.1987 which only goes to show that she was a major and thereby she was free to contact marriage of her own free will and volition and in no case it could be said that the case of kidnapping has been made out. The statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is available at Annexure-3 wherein the court has assessed her age as 15 years whereas she herself has stated her age as 20 years. The - 3 - Radiologist Age Report of the victim girl is at Annexure-5 which only goes to show that her radiological age was between 18 to 21 years. Annexure-5 does not indicate that all the tests that are required to be held for deducing the age of a person were done and the report was based only on the x-ray plate. The opposite party has filed a show cause in contest to the application filed by the petitioner and Annexure-B is the Admission Card granted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, where the date of birth of Pratiksha is indicated as 31.12.1991 as against this the petition had filed a birth certificate granted by the State of Bihar dated 26.8.1992 which is Annexure-5/1 wherein the date of birth of the victim girl is shown as 6.11.1987. Therefore, there is apparent divergence regarding the date of birth of Pratiksha Kumari and all these matters can only be sorted out in course of the trial as to which of the two certificates regarding her age was the correct one. There is another aspect of the matter. It appears that the assertion that when the victim and Munna appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he did not accept the surrender of the victim girl and directed her to approach the police is not fully correct. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had formed an opinion that because he had found that the victim and Munna had appeared through the same counsel which only gave an impression that the same was a collusive one and, therefore, he had directed the victim girl to approach the police. This fact finds mention in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 3.7.2006. - 4 - In the facts and the circumstances , stated above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)