IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29128 of 2010 CHANDRA MOHAN RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.8.2010. None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. The allegation against the petitioner is that he took or enticed away the wife of the complainant, namely, Madhulika Sinha, during the course of prosecuting her studies in National Institute of Health Education and Research, Maharajganj, Guljarbagh, Patna for pushing the lady into the flesh trade. In the light of the written report submitted by the informant, Khagaul P.S.Case No.47 of 2009 under Sections 363, 364, 366 and 367 IPC was registered. It appears that during the course of investigation, the lady was produced before the A.C.J.M., Danapur and she made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the informant used to ill- treat her and also used often to beat her and ultimately, turned her out of his house on 9.5.2009. Madhulika Sinha went to her parents and narrated to them her woes but they were not - 2 - ready to give shelter to the lady. As such, she lived for some times in a girls hostel and by changing her name she remained for sometimes in any Dharmshala(inn) and at some other places, because she always apprehended danger to her life from her husband. The lady, thereafter, went to Delhi and obtained a rented house there and remained staying there. Her husband went there in her absence and after convassing bad things against her upon her neighbours, picked up her belongings and came back to Patna in her absence. She was informed about the acts of the informant when she came back to her residence in Delhi and as such, she came back to Patna and filed a case against her husband and at the same time, got herself enrolled in the National Institute of Health Education and Research, Maharajganj, Guljarbagh, Patna and got a degree in Pathology. When she was roaming around in search of her diploma, she found that the informant had lodged a case. She also contacted the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with an application and on that very day, she was making her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and stated that she was residing with - 3 - her counsel in her house. The lady alleged that the informant was regularly holding out threats to her life and while she was making her statement, the man was present in court and was threatening her there. The lady told the Court that she did not want to live with the man. In fact, she had developed an aversion for the man, so much so, that she did not like to see his face even. The lady further stated that her husband had kept her certificate in his custody illegally and wanted the court to order the husband to deliver her certificate to her. The lady stated that whoever wanted to help her, he was suspected of carrying on an affair with her. The allegation made in the FIR has always to be judged in the light of the statement of the lady in such cases. The allegation is that Madhulika Sinha was taken or enticed away by the petitioner who developed an illicit relationship with the lady while she was prosecuting her studies in the above noted institute and the intention for the act of abducting or wrongfully confining the lady was that she might be pushed into the flesh trade. Those facts do not get support from the - 4 - statement of the lady. After considering the statements of the lady Annexure-2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the court finds that no offence could be said to be made out on that account. The learned Magistrate appears not considering the above facts which were available to him in the statement of the lady under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, it appears that the order of cognizance passed on 30th of April, 2010 in Khagaul P.S.Case No.47 of 2009, was not required to be passed under the facts of the case and as such that order is hereby quashed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )