Patna High Court - Orders
Sonu @ Sandeep Raj vs State Of Bihar on 6 July, 2012
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42284 of 2010
====================================================
Sonu @ Sandeep Raj, S/o Ram Naresh Prasad, Resident of
Mohalla-Gardanibagh, Road No. 4 (Ashirbad) P.S. Gardanibagh
District-Patna, At Present-Shastri Nagar, Q. No. 86/96 New E.I.D.
Colony, Near-S.I.H.E.W. P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================
==
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================
==
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-07-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and in my view, this petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself without issuance of notice to O.P. No. 2.
This petition under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sonu @ Sandeep Raj for quashing the order dated 27-04-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 602 of 2008 arising out of G.R.P. Case No. 383 of 2006 registered under Sections-366, 120B of the of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder, the learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012 Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section-227 of the Cr.P.C. holding that there was sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioner.
G.R.P. Case No. 383 of 2006 was registered on the basis of written report of one, Yogendra Kumar Singh who happens to be father-in-law of the victim, Vineeta Kumari . The aforesaid Yogendra Kumar Singh alleged in his written petition that on 28-09-2006, he alongiwith others got boarded the victim, Vineeta Kumari on Sampurn Kranti Express train for going to Delhi as the aforesaid, Vineeta Kumari had disclosed that her husband had sent railway ticket for going to Delhi but the aforesaid victim, Vineeta Kumari never reached Delhi and when this fact came to the notice of the informant, Yogendra Kumar Singh as well as husband of the victim, the informant lodged the above-said case expressing his doubt against one, Ashwani Kumar as well as this petitioner.
In course of investigation, the victim, Vineeta Kumari was recovered and her statement under Section- 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. Vineeta Kumari stated before the police that she was in love with co-accused, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012 Ashwani Kumar and she had asked for, from the petitioner, Sonu @ Sandeep Raj to arrange a railway ticket and on her request, the petitioner gave railway ticket to her and after that, she left her home and started residing with aforesaid Ashwani Kumar.
When the petitioner was put on trial, he filed a discharge petition before the learned trial court praying therein to discharge him from the aforesaid case as no charge was made out against him but his prayer was refused by learned trial Judge passing the impugned order against which, this quashing petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to statement of victim, she left her home by her own sweet will and at the time of alleged occurrence, she was in love and therefore, it is explicit clear that she was neither induced nor compelled by the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home and, therefore, Section-366 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable against the petitioner. It is further pointed out by him that co-accused, Ashwani Kumar @ Banti had filed Cr. Misc. No. 38829 of 2010 before this court for quashing the order of rejection of discharge petition and this court while passing the order dated 15-12- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012 2011 was pleased to observe that no prosecution under Section-366 of the Indian Penal Code may be permissible though may be prosecuted under different sections of the Indian Penal Code in the background of having the victim married girl and her marriage is still surviving. It is further contended by him that in the light of aforesaid observation of this court, it can easily be said that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section-366 of the Indian Penal Code and continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but only an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended by him that the marriage of victim, Vineeta Kumari with her husband, Anjani Kumar has already been resolved by Principal Judge, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 103 of 2010.
On the otherhand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case of co-accused, Ashwani Kumar @ Banti has been sent back to the lower court with direction to lower court to proceed afresh after taking into account the proposition formulated by the Apex Court in a decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3780 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner should also be sent to the trial court for passing afresh order in the light of observation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012 given in Cr. Misc. No. 38829 of 2010.
Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record.
From perusal of impugned order dated 27-04- 2010, it is apparent that in course of investigation, statement of victim girl was recorded at paragraph-59 of the case diary in which, she disclosed her love affairs with co- accused, Ashwani Kumar and she also stated that she alongwith the petitioner and aforesaid co-accused, Ashwani Kumar @ Banti made a plan to flee from her matrimonial home and after that, this petitioner facilitated her by providing railway ticket, so, even if the aforesaid statement of victim is taken into account, then also, it was the victim herself who insisted upon the petitioner to arrange the railway ticket to her. There is nothing in the statement of victim that the petitioner induced or compelled her to commit the alleged offence.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the fact of the present case does not come either under the ambit of kidnapping or abduction. Therefore, I do agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42284 of 2010 (2) dt.06-07-2012 nothing but only an abuse of process of law.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 27-04-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 602 of 2008 arising out of G.R.P. Case No. 383 of 2006 is, hereby, quashed and the matter is sent back to the learned trial court to pass afresh order on discharge petition of the petitioner in the light of findings given by this court in this order.
In the aforesaid manner, this petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) A.K.V./-