Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1698 (PAT)

Pallavi Anand @ Pallavi v. State of Bihar

2007-10-31

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Both the applications arising out of the same P.S. Case being Saharsa P.S. Case no. 43 of 2006 are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Through these applications, the petitioners prayed for quashing the FIR of Saharsa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2006 dated 2.2.2006 registered under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons named in the FIR. 4. It appears from the facts of the case that an FIR was registered on the basis of fard beyan given by Surendra Khan, respondent No. 6 of the writ application who alleged that his minor daughter, the petitioner Pallavi Anand, has been kidnapped by the accused persons named in the FIR. 5. Submission is that the petitioner Pallavi Anand was major on the date of occurrence which is apparent from the number of papers available on the record and she has every right to chose her life partner accordingly, she chosen her life partner of her liking and she is willing to live with him but her father was not allowing her to live with her liking partner and harassing her and her in-laws. Further submission is that the marriage is being opposed only because it is the enter caste marriage, except the above there is nothing to oppose the marriage. Further submission is that the petitioner Pallavi Anand was not satisfied because her father was willing to marry her with a persons who is 20 years older than her. Now she is satisfied with her in-laws. 6 In course of investigation it appeared that the victim has been examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 31.7.2007 which is annexed as Annexure-13 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner Pallavi Anand. In statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has described as to why she has married with the person of her liking and dislike her father's choice because her father wants to marry her with a person who is 20 years older than her. The Court has assessed her age to be 24 years. According to the Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is a certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board, her date of birth is 19.1.1985. An affidavit is also on the record from which it appears that there the petitioner has performed marriage. The Court has assessed her age to be 24 years. According to the Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is a certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board, her date of birth is 19.1.1985. An affidavit is also on the record from which it appears that there the petitioner has performed marriage. There is nothing on the record from which any opinion could be gathered that the petitioner was not major on the date of occurrence. 7. The prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondent No. 6 but he is not in a position to produce any document to establish the fact that the petitioner was minor on the date of occurrence rather the submission of the petitioner remained unrebutted. 8. Once it is found that girl has become major then she has every right to chose her life partner accordingly, she has chosen her life partner and there is no law which can prohibit her to marry and live according to her own choice. 9. In view of the aforesaid developments it is not desirable that any further investigation should be continued in the case. Accordingly the prosecution case relating to Saharsa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2006 is quashed.