IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1030 of 2011 Ajit Kumar Upadhyay Son Of Satyadeo Upadhyay Resident Of Village- Ankodhi, P.S.- Sonhan, District- Kaimur At Bhabua ………………….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police,Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police,Patna 4. The Superintendent of Police,Kaimur At Bhabua 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhabua,District- Kaimur At Bhabua 6. The Officer-In-Charge of Police Station-Sonhan 7. Madan Upadhyay Son of Late Bharat Upadhyay Resident of Villge- Ankodhi, P.S.- Sonhan, District- Kaimur At Bhabua …………….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02/ 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Counsel to learned Advocate General. Petitioner, who happens to be an accused of Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 205 of 2011 registered under Section 366A/34 of the IPC, has come up with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. followed with investigation on the fact that from the F.I.R. itself the age of victim namely, Nitu Kumari has been shown as 20 years, a major one, who out of her own sweet will married with petitioner and is leading happy conjugal life having pregnancy of twelve weeks. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of physical condition of the victim coupled with surrounding atmosphere created by father of victim taking the police in his collusion, been forced to file instant petition instead of joint petition. So submitted that it is a fit case wherein there should be application of guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Case reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 3309. At the other hand, learned Assistant Counsel to learned 2 Advocate General submitted that still the girl is traceless, her attendance has not been procured by the investigating authority nor her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Therefore, whatever submissions happens to be, it appears to be one sided perceive and submitted by the petitioner himself, who is one of the accused of Bhabua (Sonhan) P.S. Case No. 205 of 2011. From perusal of the written report itself it is evident that the girl is major one. Therefore, she is at liberty to exercise her constitutional liberty of life as well as its corollary effect. The prayer of the petitioner, being an accused is not at all tenable until there happens to be a note of consent at the hands of victim. Therefore, the victim plays centre of point. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the victim to have her presence before the investigating authority, who will get her examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Because of the fact that the girl is major one, therefore, the police will not take into control over the victim nor she will subject to any sort of torture, harassment, coercion, allurement at any corner. The learned C.J.M. will also see that she being major appears to be immune from aforesaid exercise. With the aforesaid observation, instant petition is disposed of. DKS/ (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)