IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1395 of 2009 PARMANAND PRABHAKAR, S/O GHURBIGAN RAM, R/O KUDHUKALA, P.S. MUGALSARAI, DISTRICT CHANDOULI (U.P.) .. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY **** For the petitioner .. Mr. A.N. Tripathi, Adv. For the State .. Mr. Akbar Ali, A.P.P. **** /3/ 30.11.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 28.03.2006, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, in Sultanganj (Agamkuan) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2006 under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan by the informant, Tej Narain Sharma, his daughter, Pinki Kumari, aged about fifteen years, has been taken away by one Dazy Kumari and kidnapped by Dr. Amul Kumar Gupta, in collusion with Jamuna Gupta, Parmanand 2 Prabhakar, Devendra Gupta and others. On the basis of the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and investigation proceeded and after the investigation the charge sheet has been submitted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in the case diary there is material to suggest that the victim was traced out and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the matriculation certificate of the victim was brought and in paragraph 49 of the case diary it has been mentioned that the matriculation certificate was procured and from perusal of the same it has been found that the date of birth in the matriculation certificate 2nd February, 1987. In paragraph 92 of the case diary, the Medical Board has assessed the age of the victim as 15 to 17 years and the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code has stated that she out of own sweet will went out of her house and has married with Dr. Amul Kumar Gupta. However, the date of occurrence alleged to be 21.12.2007, according to the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the victim is 2nd February, 1987, hence, on the date of the occurrence, as per the 3 matriculation certificate, she is more than eighteen years. However, though the Medical Board suggests her age to be 15 to 17 years. However, when there is competition between the matriculation certificate and the certificate of Medical Board, the law is well established that the matriculation certificate shall prevail. 5. Having regard to the facts that the age of the victim was more than eighteen years and she out of her own sweet will left the house and got married with Dr. Amul Kumar Gupta, no offence is made out. However, the Court below did not apply mind to this vital aspect of the matter. 6. The order taking cognizance is hereby set aside and the criminal proceeding is hereby quashed. 7. The criminal miscellaneous is allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)