Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 223 (JHR)

Srikant Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER :- Heard Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connections with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 160 of 2014 which has been instituted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 has submitted a written report before the Golmuri Police Station in which it was alleged that on 24.06.2014 his daughter Seema Bharti had gone out to attend the Women Government Polytechnic, Gamharia and when she did not return home a Sanha was lodged on 27.06.2014 in the police station. It has been alleged that on enquiry, he came to know that two or three persons had forcibly taken away his daughter in a Sumo car. It has subsequently been alleged that his daughter Seema Bharti called his younger daughter Shweta Bharti on telephone and informed that it was the petitioner who was studying with her at Orissa had kidnapped her on the pretext of marrying her. After enquiry the informant could come to know that the petitioner had kidnapped his daughter and taken her away to Udaypur in the State of Rajasthan with an intention to marry her. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Golmuri P. S. Case No. 160 of 2014 was instituted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out as against the petitioner because the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 had willingly gone with the petitioner and has subsequently solemnized marriage with him. He has further submitted that an application was also given before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udaypur for examining her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but the same was not done. He has relied upon the Marriage Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Udaypur in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, he submits that since the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was major and had gone with the petitioner at her own free will and had solemnized marriage with the petitioner, therefore, in such circumstances, no criminal proceedings under Section 366 IPC, is made out as against the petitioner. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the daughter of the informant and which has been mentioned in the written report of the informant-opposite party No. 2. He has further submitted that the Marriage Certificate on which the petitioner is relying upon does not seems to be in accordance with law as the necessary requirements with respect to the prior notice and the number of witnesses of the marriage have not been fulfilled. He has further submitted with respect to the registration of the marriage which has been annexed by the petitioner that the same seems to be with respect to the marriage which was solemnized prior to 22.05.2006 and that there are several discrepancies in the said certificate also. He has further submitted that the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 on being tortured by the petitioner at Udaypur has come back to Jamshedpur and staying with her father. He thus submits that marriage itself was not proved and that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the daughter of the informant as such the present application is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the documents, I find that the opposite party No. 2 had instituted an F.I.R. in which he had specifically named this petitioner as the person who had forcibly kidnapped his daughter. It further appears that the Marriage Certificate and the Registration Certificate on which the petitioner is relying upon is being disputed by the opposite party No. 2 as according to him, the same is not in accordance with law as several discrepancies exists in both the certificates. Moreover, during the course of this proceeding, an attempt was made by the court as to whether the issue can be settled or not and with that respect both the parties were directed to remain present. From the order dated 15.01.2015, it appears that the petitioner could not make himself available on that date whereas the daughter of the informant who was physically present had specifically stated that she had left the house of the petitioner on account of torture meted out to her. From the order dated 15.01.2015, it appears that the petitioner could not make himself available on that date whereas the daughter of the informant who was physically present had specifically stated that she had left the house of the petitioner on account of torture meted out to her. Since disputed questions of fact has arisen with respect to the Marriage Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Udaypur in the State of Rajasthan and in view of the fact that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner in the First Information Report, it cannot be said at this stage that no case under Section 366 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. 7. Therefore, after considering the entire facts on records, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.