IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.464 of 2009 SURAJ YADV @ SURAJ KUMAR Son of Sri Chhathu Yadav, resident of Mohalla – Nawada, PS Ara Nawada, District Bhojpur ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Superintendent of Poice, Bhojpur, Ara 4. Superintendent, Remand Home, Patna 5. Officer Incharge of Ara Nawada Police Station, District Bhojpur 6. Rekha Kumari wife of Suraj Yadav, Son of Sri Chhathu Yadav, resident of Mohalla Nawada, PS Ara Nawada, District Bhojpur 7. Surendra Ojha Son of Late Brij Nandan Ojha, resident of Village – Phulari (Sandesh), PS Sandesh, District Bhojpur ………. Respondents ----------- 07- 9.10.2009 Heard Mr. Ajay for the petitioner, Mr. H P Singh, learned Govt. Advocate no.6 for respondent nos. 1 to 5, Mr. Vinod Kumar for respondent no.6, and Mr. N K Agrawal for respondent no.7. The petitioner claims to have married respondent no.6 as per the Hindu rites, and seeks a direction for her release from the Remand Home to be allowed to go with him to her matrimonial home. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner claims to have married respondent no.6 as per Hindu rites in Mahabir Mandir, Patna, on 9.4.2008. Respondent no.7 is the father of respondent no.6. After respondent no.7 learnt that the petitioner and respondent no.6 had eloped and had ultimately married, he lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner, which is pending bearing Ara Nawada PS Case No.84/08, registered under the provisions of Section - 2 - 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner thereafter surrendered in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and was released on bail on the same day. Respondent no.6 also surrendered before the learned Magistrate at Ara. Her statement was recorded under the provisions of Section 164, Cr.P.C. She was subjected to medical examination, and was remanded to Remand Home, Gaithat, Patna. 2. By order dated 15.9.2009, we had summoned the petitioner and respondent no.7, and had also directed the learned Govt. Advocate to ensure production of respondent no.6 from the Remand Home. All the three persons are personally present today. 4. We have interviewed the petitioner, respondent no.6 and respondent no.7, separately in camera. The petitioner and respondent no.6 have submitted in one voice that they had voluntarily and out of free will eloped from the township of Ara and married in Hanuman Mandir in Patna on 9.4.2008. They lived like husband and wife for about two weeks, and their marriage has been consummated. Respondent no.6 is willing to go to her matrimonial home and join her husband. Respondent no.7 has submitted that the petitioner is uneducated, unemployed and very crude in every respect. It is a complete mismatch and, the two have in fact never married and are at best acquaintance. He also submits that the school-leaving certificate of respondent no.6 discloses that she was born on 10.12.1992 and, therefore, is not entitled to exercise her discretion for marriage. She will attain 18 years of age on 10.12.2010. 5. We have perused the materials on record, considered - 3 - the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and have given our anxious consideration to the issues involved in the matter. It appears to us that the petitioner and respondent no.6 had eloped from Ara, and married according to the Hindu rites in Patna on 9.4.2008. It further appears from the school-leaving certificate of respondent no.6 that she was born on 10.12.1992. However, the girl’s medical examination discloses that she was aged 16 to 17 years on 26.5.2008. She had stated before the learned Magistrate in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that she was aged 18 years on 27.5.2008. Furthermore, the learned Sessions Judge has in his order dated 20.4.2009, passed in Cr. Revision no.50/09, stated that the girl is aged not less than 18 years, and the two have willingly and voluntarily married. From the appearance of respondent no.6 it appears to us that she is a major and must have been 18 years of age on the date of her marriage. Taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that it would be in the fitness of things that respondent no.6 is allowed to go her matrimonial home to join her husband. Accordingly, respondent no.6 is released from the care and custody of the Remand Home and is permitted to leave this court along with her husband. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. In that view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice not to allow the informant to proceed with the criminal case, - 4 - and the FIR in connection with Ara Nawada PS Case no.84/08, is hereby quashed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma ) mrl