IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16641 of 2007 MD. IRFAN ALAM S/o Late Sadarul Haqaue, resident of village Bhokarahi, P. S. Kishanpur, District Supaul………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md.Abadur Rahman s/o Md. Balliur Rahman, resident of village Bhokarahi, P. S. Kishanpur, District Supaul. 3. Mahlekha Begum d/o Md.Walim Rahman, resident of village Bhokarahi, P. S. Kishanpur, District Supaul… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Party. For the petitioner : Mr. Amrit Abhijit, Mr.Subesh Sharma, Advocates. For the State : Mr. C.Jawahar, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2. : Mr. F.A.Khan, Mr.Sufiyan, Advocates. 6 04.05.2009 Cognizance order dated 6th January 2006 has been passed against the petitioner under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code which arose out of Kishanpur P.S.Case No. 42 of 2001. Against the order of cognizance, petitioner filed revision before the court of learned Sessions judge, Saharsa. Cr.Revn.No. 84 of 2006(S) came to be registered, heard and the order taking cognizance has been affirmed vide order dated 1st July 2006. The two orders are under challenge in the present quashing application. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the Final Form was submitted there was no occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear the informant, examine the materials which may be additional and take cognizance under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code against him. 2 The Court need not record all the materials which have been pleaded in the present application or the background of so called kidnapping of the victim girl and the dispute raised with regard to his marriage with her or the age of the victim girl based on 161 Cr.P.C. statement and other materials which have been brought on the record. In the background that many litigations out of the case had travelled to this High Court. Hon’ble High Court after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3394 of 2002, on hearing the victim in Chamber, had certain things to record vide order dated 24th March 2004, reflection of the same is there in the order taking cognizance. A judicial order having been passed on the statement which came to be recorded of the victim girl cannot be brushed aside and overlooked and even otherwise there is material to show that the girl was a minor when the incident had taken place. The totality of facts of the case does not compel this Court to quash the orders in question. Petitioner can build up all the defence as may be available to him under the law at the time of trial. The application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Jay/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J )