Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 173 (PAT)

Ram Raji Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-17

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Patori P.S. Case No. 18/2000, G.R. Case No. 361 of 2000 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 364, 365, 366, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and has ordered to issue summons against them. 2. Heard. 3. It appears that one Dharmendra Kumar Singh (opposite party No. 2) had lodged a first information report that his sister Simpal Singh was kidnapped by the petitioner for the purpose of marriage and the petitioners father and uncle assisted him in the said kidnapping. On the above allegation Patori P.S. Case No. 18/2000 was registered. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It further appears that while the investigation was pending a criminal writ vide Cr W.J.C. No. 209 of 2000 was filed before this Court by the victim girl namely Simpal for directing the respondents (petitioners) not to interfere with the life and liberty of petitioner Simpal Singh who is a lady and also not to interfere with the life and liberty of her husband and his family members who are allegedly facing harassment and humiliation at the hands of the respondents authorities who were all police officials alleging therein that she was major and she out of her own free will had gone out and married Santosh Kumar Singh. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that none of the police officials are expected to act contrary to law and they shall not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners or her in-law except in accordance with law. It was further observed in the order that Parwati Devi alias Simpal Singh may appear before the concerned Magistrate along with anticipatory proof of her, identity, then the Magistrate shall, in the facts and circumstances of the case, record her statement under Section 164, Cr P.C. in accordance with law. It was further observed in the order that Parwati Devi alias Simpal Singh may appear before the concerned Magistrate along with anticipatory proof of her, identity, then the Magistrate shall, in the facts and circumstances of the case, record her statement under Section 164, Cr P.C. in accordance with law. Accordingly, the statement of the said victim Simpal Singh was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr PC in which she categorically stated that she had married Santosh Kumar Singh out of her own free will and that she was living with him out of her free will and that no body has kidnapped her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of overwhelming materials which have come in course of investigation as also in the statement of Simpal Singh recorded under Section 164. Cr PC, no case is made out against the petitioners and, hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners is bad in law and is fit to be quashed. He also submitted that the learned Magistrate had no knowledge about the criminal writ application and the order passed thereon and he took cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet. 5. I had called the victim girl and the informant in my Chambers on 14.2.2006. A lady introducing herself as Simpal Singh appeared in Chambers along with her two children but the informant did not appear. The alleged victim volunteered in presence of the respective Advocates of both the parties that she married Santosh Singh out of her free will. She was also having two children with her. She further replied on a query that her informant brother will not appear in Chambers because he wants to harass her in various ways as her marriage was solemnised on her own choice without his consent. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 informant submitted that the girl was minor at the time of the said marriage. He produced a school leaving certificate showing her age on the alleged date of incident as 17 years 9 months and 25 days only. Learned counsel for the petitioners. in reply, submitted that only few days were less therein attaining the age of majority by the victim. So. no cognizance should be taken of this fact that there were yet few days left in attaining her majority. Learned counsel for the petitioners. in reply, submitted that only few days were less therein attaining the age of majority by the victim. So. no cognizance should be taken of this fact that there were yet few days left in attaining her majority. He further submitted that the victim girl has appeared in person in Chambers with her two children. Hence, certificate may be showing that she had not attained the age of majority on the date of occurrence but since she was having two children aged in between 5-8 years, hence the age of the victim girl can very well be assessed from her appearance. Moreover, the Court recording her statement under Section 164, Cr PC has also assessed her age as 20 years. On the date of her examination i.e. 4.11.2000. 7. As the statement of the victim girl herself is that she has out of her own sweet had gone with Santosh Kumar Singh and they were married. I think it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to continue the proceeding of the case against the petitioners. In coming to this conclusion, I find support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rita Devi @ Kumari Rita V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1990 (2) BLJ 597 where in similar circumstance in a similarly instituted case, the FIR was quashed. 8. In view of the above observation, this Criminal Misc. Application for quashing is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.4.2002 is hereby quashed.