IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20110 of 2007 1. ARTI KUMARI daughter of Kameshwar Thakur 2. Prince Kumar, @ Suvir Kumar, Son of Kameshwar Thakur 3. Poonam Devi , wife of Kameshwar Thakur 4. Kameshwar Thakur, Son of Late Lal Bahadur Thakur, All residents of Village- Sankarpur Vindi, Police Station-Piprahi, District-Sheohar ---------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chitranjan Thakur, Son of Late Jai Mangal Thakur, resident of Village Sankarpur Vindi, Police Station Piprahi, District-Sheohar --------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Kundan Bahadur Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate ------------ O R D E R All the four F.I.R. named accused of Piprahi P.S. Case no.40 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 15.1.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar at Sitamarhi , whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 366A read with Section 34 I.P.C. One Chitranjan Thakur, the informant, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, submitted a written report on 11.5.2006 to the Officer Incharge , Piprahi inter alia stating that at about 6.00 A.M. in the morning of 8.5.2006 , Arti Kumari came to his house and took away his minor daughter, Rupam Kumari , aged about 17 years with her. Intially, it was thought that Arti had taken Rupam for some purpose. However, later on, when he asked his wife, Rita Devi, as to - 2 - where Rupam had gone and whether she had returned or not, the wife replied that she had gone with Arti, but she had not returned till then. It is alleged that the informant then went to the house of Kameshwar Thakur , the father of Arti, in search of his daughter whom he did not find there. Later on, he came to know that Prince Kumar son of Kameshwar Thakur , Arti, Poonam, wife of Kameshwar Thakur and Kameshwar Thakur himself had enticed his minor daughter and had taken her away either for the purpose of marrying her or selling her of and he also learnt that they were seen going away on a Jeep. Frantic search for the daughter did not yield any result. It is said that co- villagers, Govind Thakur, Manoj Thakur, Mukund Thakur and Rajnish Thakur had seen the occurrence. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution story is completely false, baseless and vexatious and has been fabricated with the sole motive to harass the petitioners out of vendetta and ill will. It has also been submitted that Rupam ,the victim girl, was a major and had left her house of her own free-will and volition to enter into inter-caste marriage with Rajeev Kumar who is said to be a friend of petitioner no.2 ,Prince Kumar, and that the couple were happily living in Delhi. In this connection, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer in course of investigation had visited Delhi and had found this fact to be correct but eventually a chargesheet was submitted saying charges against the petitioners were found to be true. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that - 3 - Rupam Kumari by a registered letter no.3660 had informed the police regarding her marriage with Rajeev Kumar and in support thereof had submitted her marriage certificate, affidavits by both Rupam and Rajeev Kumar and a copy of the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Bihar School Secondary Examination Board, which indicated her date of birth as 4.1.1987 and that she had passed Matriculation examination in the year 2004. She had also informed that she had solemnized her marriage with Rajeev Kumar at Delhi out of her own free-will and volition. All these facts find a mention in the diary and the relevant documents are available with the records of the case. On this premise, it has been submitted that the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him, notwithstanding the large number of evidentiary materials in favour of the petitioners, had submitted a chargesheet against them and the cognizance taking court had mechanically taken cognizance without applying its judicious mind. It appears from the record that Rupam Kumari, the victim girl, was aged about 18 years and she had married a man of her choice. It appears from the chargesheet filed by the prosecution that the victim girl had admitted that she had married Rajeev Kumar and was living happily with him as husband and wife. Further, the certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board reveals the date of birth of Rupam as 4.1.1987 and the date of occurrence is said to be 8.5.2006 which would mean that the victim girl was 19 years old on the date of occurrence and being a major she was free to exercise her free-will and volition and enter into a marriage with any person of her - 4 - choice. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the cognizance taken against the petitioners is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 16th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.