IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.504 of 2011 1. Ishrat Khatoon W/O Md. Saddam 2. Md. Saddam, son of Kalam 3. Md. Imteyaz @ Md. Fariyaad Alam, son of Kalam 4. Md. Gulab, son of Md. Sattar. 5. Md. Firoz, son of Late Md. Mainul. 6. Md. Kalam, son of Md. Birbal (sasur) 7. Md. Aftab, son of Md. Majeed, all residents of Mohalla-Khojlipur Rauha Apuchh, P.S. Mushari, District-Dist-Muzaffarpur. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police Muzaffarpur, Dist- Muzaffarpur. 2. Md. Sabir Late Md. Mansoor Resident of Vill- Dhiran Chapra, P.S- Bela, Dist- Muzaffarpur. ---------------------------------- with Criminal Writ No.832 of 2011 1. Ishrat Khatoon W/O Md. Saddam Moh-Khojlipur Rauha Apuchh, P.S- Mushari, Dist-Muzaffarpur 2. Md. Saddam @ Md. Saddam Hussain Kalam Moh-Khojlipur Rauha Apuchh, P.S-Mushari, Dist-Muzaffarpur 3. Md. Imteyaz @ Md. Fariyaad Alam Null Moh-Khojlipur Rauha Apuchh, P.S-Mushari, Dist-Muzaffarpur 4. Md. Gulab Md. Sattar Moh-Khojlipur Rauha Apuc hh, P.S-Mushari, Dist-Muzaffarpur 5. Md. Firoz @ Firoz Late Md. Mainul Moh-Khojlipur Rauha Apuchh, P.S-Mushari, Dist-Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Superintendent Of Police Muzaffarpur, Dist-Muzaffarpur 2. Md. Sabir Late Md. Mansoor Resident Of Vill- Dhiran Chapra, P.S- Bela, Dist- Muzaffarpur ---------------------------------- 5 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as AC to AAG-VII. Criminal Writ No.504 of 2011 was initially filed for quashing of Bela P.S. Case No.6 of 2011 as well as Bela P.S. Case No.9 of 2011 along with other ancillary reliefs but during course of submission, as is evident from order dated 20.05.2011 the learned 2 counsel confined his submission only with regard to Bela P.S. Case No.6 of 2011 and that happens to be reason behind filing of another Criminal Writ No.832 of 2011 wherein there has been prayer of quashing of FIR of Bela P.S. Case No.9 of 2011 along with other ancillary reliefs. In Both the cases victim happens to be same, Ishrat Khatoon D/o informant Md. Sabbir who was kidnapped / adducted and her age, according to FIR, happens to be 13 years. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases that informant has intentionally and malafidely disclosed the age of victim Ishrat Khatoon as 13 years, rather she happens to be aged about 16 years, above the age of puberty so prescribed under Mohammedan Law which happens to be 15 years as is evident from Article 251 of “Mullah Mohammedan Law”. It has further been submitted that under Mohammedan Law puberty is the age which plays crucial role as from this stage, a Mohammedan is found to be competent enough to accent of his / her marriage. Article 251 itself commands that after attaining age of puberty, the consent of would be groom / bridegroom facilitate valid marriage. In the aforesaid background, it has been submitted that Ishrat Khatoon being competent according to Mohammedan Law having above the age of puberty consented herself and got herself married against the will and wish of informant and so recording of both the FIRs followed with investigation is nothing but whimsical action of prosecution. Consequent thereupon is fit to be quashed. State is represented by learned AC to AAG-VII. He has opposed the prayer and submitted that personal law will not override the 3 penal provision where under the girl below age of 18 years has been identified as minor and was not at all competent to enter into marriage according to her own sweet will even accepting the submission raised on behalf of petitioner. For the present, there happens to be no need to intermingle with the submission / rival submission. Admittedly, girl has not come forwarded so much so that her statement is yet to be recorded. Investigation is going on. Taking into account, nature of allegation, the statement of girl will play pivotal role in its ultimate result subject to her age. Most likely, the victim is going to be present before Investigating Officer, as pleaded. In case Ishrat Khatoon comes up before the investigating authority for the purpose of her statement, she will not be tortured coerced, allured from any counts. Her statement followed with medical examination will at least satisfy the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the point of custody of the girl. It is naturally expected that the statement of victim will also command the mode of investigation. With the aforesaid observation both the writ petitions are disposed of. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)