Patna High Court
Prannath Kumar @ Prannath Roy & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 October, 2017
Author: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7733 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -223 Year- 2009 Thana -BIBHUTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR
===========================================================
1. Prannath Kumar @ Prannath Roy, son of Ram Udagar Rai.
2. Shaktinath Kumar @ Shaktinath Ray, son of Ram Nihora Ray.
Both resident of Village- Dih Tabhaka, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
3. Ajay Kumar, son of Indra Dev Singh.
4. Pawan Kumar, son of Indradeo Singh.
5. Manish Kumar, son of Siyaram Singh.
All resident of Village- Hazipur, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ashok Rai, son of Late Heera Lal Roy, resident of Village- Dih Tabha, P.S.-
Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
3. Saflata Kumari, wife of Prannath Kumar @ Prannath Roy, son of Ram Udgar
Rai, resident of Village- Dih Tabhaka, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
.... .... Opposite Parties.
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : M/s. Prabhat Kumar Singh and Pramod Kumar
Singh, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 30-10-2017
---------------
Heard.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is directed against the order dated 20.12.2013 passed in
Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.223 of 2009, whereby the court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, took the cognizance of the offence under
Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-
petitioners on perusal of the materials available in the case diary.
3. The facts leading to this application are that the opposite
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7733 of 2014 dt.30-10-2017
2/5
party no.2 Ashok Rai gave his written report on 31.08.2009 before the
Officer Incharge, Bibhutipur Police Station alleging therein that his
daughter Saflata Kumari (opposite party no.3), aged about 16 years, had
gone to attend the coaching class at Dalsingsarai on 20.08.2009 but she did
not return till evening. Thereafter, he started to search his daughter and, in
that course, he came to know that his daughter (opposite party no.3) was
seen with villagers, Prannath Kumar (petitioner no.1), Shaktinath Kumar
(petitioner no.2) and Ajay Kumar (petitioner no.3), Pawan Kumar
(petitioner no.4) and Manish Kumar (petitioner no.5), resident of village-
Hajipur, P.S. Barauni, District-Begusarai. The informant/opposite party
no.2 claimed that the accused-petitioner nos.1 and 2 with the help of other
accused-petitioners kidnapped his daughter/opposite party no.3 for the
purpose of marriage.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the opposite
party no.2 Ashok Rai, Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.223 of 2009 was registered
under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners.
On investigation, the police submitted the final form in the case
against the accused petitioners on the ground of mistake of fact. Thereafter,
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, on perusal of the
materials available in the case diary took the cognizance of the offence
under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners through the impugned order dated 20.12.2013, differing with the
final form submitted by the police.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7733 of 2014 dt.30-10-2017
3/5
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, there
was love affair in between the petitioner no.1 Prannath Kumar alias
Prannath Roy and the opposite party no.3 Saflata Kumar, the daughter of
the opposite party no.2, due to that reason, the opposite party no.3 left her
parental house and performed the marriage with the petitioner no.1
according to her sweet will and due to their wedlock there is one baby, aged
about 6 years. The opposite party no.3, at present, is also pregnant. Further
submission is that, in course of investigation, the statement of the
victim/opposite party no.3 Saflata Kumari, the daughter of the opposite
party no.2, was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 22.12.2009 by the court of Sri Ambika Prasad Choudhary,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rosera, Samastipur, in which she stated
about performing marriage with the petitioner no.1 according to her sweet
will due to love affair. At the time of recording the statement under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim/opposite party no.3
disclosed her age 20 years and the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rosera,
Samastipur, also assessed her age about 21 years, which would appear from
Annexure-'2' to this application. Apart from that, in medical examination
of the opposite party no.3, her age was assessed in between 18½ to 19 years
by the Medical Board. The police, on investigation, submitted the final
form against the accused-petitioners, on the ground of mistake of fact but
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur, illegally took
the cognizance of the offence under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioners through the impugned order differing
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7733 of 2014 dt.30-10-2017
4/5
with the final form submitted by the police.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submits that due
to love affair, the victim/opposite party no.3 performed the marriage with
the petitioner no.1 Prannath Kumar alias Prannath Roy according to her
sweet will and due to their wedlock, there is one baby, aged about six years,
and, at present, she is also pregnant.
7. In the F.I.R., the date of occurrence regarding the kidnapping
of the victim/opposite party no.3, the daughter of the opposite party no.2, is
said to be of 31.08.2009 and her age was detailed 16 years. In the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
by the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rosera, Samastipur on
22.12.2009, the victim/opposite party no.3 disclosed her age 20 years and the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rosera, Samastipur, also assessed her age about 21 years. The victim/opposite party no.3 in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated about performing the marriage with the petitioner no.1 due to love affair according to her sweet will, which would appear from Annexure-'2' to this application.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the victim/opposite party no.3, who is said to be kidnapped by the petitioners, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated about performing her marriage with the petitioner no.1 according to her sweet will due to love affair, the continuance of the criminal proceedings on taking the cognizance of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7733 of 2014 dt.30-10-2017 5/5 offence against the petitioners through the impugned order would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.12.2013 passed in Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.223 of 2009 by the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, taking the cognizance of the offence under Sections 363 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused- petitioners as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed and this application is allowed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.11.2017. Transmission 15.11.2017. Date