Jharkhand High Court
Rajkumari Rajak vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 1205 of 2023
Rajkumari Rajak, W/o -Vinod Kumar Rajak, aged about 58 years,
r/o Ward No. 11, Kashipur, P.O. Samastipur, P.S. Samastipur (T),
District -Samastipur, Bihar -848101.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, DPRD building,
HEC Dhurwa, P.O. -Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District -
Ranchi -834004
3. Superintendent of Police, P.O., P.S. & Dist. -Dumka
4. Officer In-charge, Dumka (T), P.S., P.O. & Dist. -Dumka.
5. Manikant Roy, S/o Late Nand Lal Roy, R/o Goushala Road,
Dudhani, P.O. -Dumka, P.S. -Dumka (T), Dist. -Dumka,
Jharkhand -814101
6. Annu Priya Kumari, W/o Sri Rajul Raj, D/o Manikant Roy, aged
about 19 years, R/o C/o Manikant Roy, Goushala Road,
Dudhani, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka (T), Dist. -Dumka,
Jharkhand -814101. .... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate For the Resp. -State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III For the Respondents : Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. being 1 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 dated 19.03.2023, registered involving the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons and also quashing the order dated 06.06.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 whereby and where under process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued and for quashing all subsequent proceedings thereto and to release the vehicle bearing registration no. BR33 AX 2384.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the mother of Rahul Raj who has solemnized marriage with the alleged victim of the case who has been arrayed as respondent no.6. An F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no.5, father of the respondent no.6 alleging therein that the respondent no.6 has been kidnapped and procured for being forced an d seduced to illicit intercourse with a person.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a government employee and her son Rahul Raj is an established businessman. It is contended that the respondent no.6 was born at Royale Hospital, Samastipur on 07.05.2004 and the birth certificate, issued by the Registrar (Birth & Death), Nagar Nigam, Samastipur has been annexed as annexure-1 of this writ petition. It is next submitted that the respondent no.5 opened a bank account in the name of respondent no.6 wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 29.09.2004, the copy of the passbook 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 has been annexed as annexure-2 of this writ petition. Without the knowledge and consent of the respondent no.6, the respondent no.5 has mentioned the date of birth of the respondent no.6 as 29.09.2004. It is next submitted that the son of the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the respondent no.6 on 27.03.2023 and their marriage was registered before the Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on 27.03.2023, the copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 of this writ petition. It is next submitted that as the respondent no.5 was not happy with the marriage with the son of the petitioner with the respondent no.6, to destroy the family of the petitioner, has instituted this F.I.R. without naming anybody as accused person. It is next submitted that in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the reference of which has been made in para-186 of the case diary, it has been categorically mentioned that the victim who has claimed her age to be 19 years stated that she knows the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj for five years and she has been in relationship with Rahul Raj for three years out of her own volition and as the marriage of the respondent no.6 with Rahul Raj was an inter-caste marriage, the respondent no.5 being not happy with this marriage and as the respondent no.6 did not agree to leave the said Rahul Raj, hence by preparing a false birth certificate, her father has instituted this case. It is next submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of this case, the continuation of the criminal proceeding and F.I.R. vide Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 2023 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed.
5. The learned G.A.-III appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that though initially the respondent no.6 along with the respondent no.5 have engaged him as a lawyer in this case but the respondent no.6 in the meanwhile, has joined the petitioner and leading conjugal life with Rahul Raj, hence at present he has no instruction from the respondent no.6 but another F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no.5 consequent upon the respondent no.6 re-joining the said Rahul Raj on 05.05.2024. It is next submitted that since on the date of occurrence, the victim of this case was a minor girl, so the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question in which the victim was taken away after she was kidnapped, this writ petitioner being without any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that annexure-1, the birth certificate of the respondent no.6, issued by the Registrar, (Birth and Death), Nagar Nigam, Samastipur goes to show that the date of birth of the victim is 07.05.2004 and the annexure-2 goes to show that the date of birth of the victim has been 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 mentioned as 29.09.2004. If either of the said two documents regarding the date of birth of the victim, are considered to be true, then on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim was a major lady. The undisputed fact remains that the victim has categorically stated even in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she out of her own volition is leading conjugal life with the said Rahul Raj. It is needless to mention here that in a criminal trial in order to ensure conviction, the charge is to be proved against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
Though it has been contended by the State that the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj has produced the annexure-1 before the police and I.O. of the case and upon verification, the Registrar of Birth and Death, Samastipur has got an endorsement made on his application answering the query that there is no entry no.2059 with date of registration as 31.12.2007 entered in the Books of the Registrar of Birth and Death, Samastipur, claiming which to be the basis, on which the online Birth Certificate has been issued which has been filed as annexure-1 but there is no allegation against the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj, who produced the annexure-1 before the police during the investigation of the case, to claim that he has committed any offence of forgery, though charge sheet has been submitted against the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj, as is evident from annexure-F of the counter affidavit filed by the State and the son of the petitioner Rahul Raj has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code only. The undisputed fact remains that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution that she was enticed away by the son of the petitioner, petitioner or anyone else. All along, her statement is that she has voluntarily went to lead conjugal life with the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj. The learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has also fairly submitted that at present, the respondent no.6 who has undisputedly already attained majority is leading a conjugal life with the son of the petitioner namely Rahul Raj.
7. Under such circumstances, as it is crystal clear that the alleged victim -respondent no.6 has solemnized an inter-caste marriage against the will of her father-respondent no.5, the case has been instituted which is not supported by the victim herself. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding in respect of Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. relating to Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 including the order dated 06.06.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with the said Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 including all the subsequent proceedings be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
8. Accordingly, the F.I.R. relating to Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 including the order dated 06.06.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and all subsequent proceeding 6 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023 in connection with the said Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
9. The petitioner may approach the court concerned for release of the vehicle bearing registration no. BR33AX 2384.
10. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
11. In view of disposal of this writ petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 28.02.2024 is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th January, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
7 W.P. (Cr.) No.1205 of 2023