SUMIA SULTANA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Domkal Police Station Case No. 697 of 2010 under sections 363/365/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3795/2010 is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad. The said case was started on the basis of a complaint in writing made to the police by the opposite party No. 2 Abdur Rashid Mondal. In the said complaint it was inter alia alleged that the present petitioner aged between 15/16 years and a student of Class - X and happened to be the daughter of the defacto-complainant was earlier kidnapped by the accused Raju Sk. but with the help of the police she was rescued. Thereafter, on and from 12 midnight of October 30, 2010 the said daughter of the defacto-complainant once again found missing and after enquiry de facto-complainant has come to learn this time also the said accused Raju Sk. has kidnapped his minor girl and her taken away from the village for some oblique purposes with the help of others.

(2.) It appears from the certificate issued by the Murshidabad District Primary School Board, which is the part of Case Diary that her date of birth is March 5, 1995. Therefore, at the present moment she is aged about 16 years and 5 months. Now, having gone through her statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find she claimed to have married by the accused Raju Sk. according to Mohammedan Law and she left her parents home on her own without being compelled by the accused persons and further appears she is not willing to return to her parents. Thus, having regards to the materials on record I find she is now aged about 16 years and 5 months and not having completed the age of 18 years she is a child within the meaning of section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It further appears from the allegations made in the First Information Report by her father and her statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she fled away from her parents, on two occasions and now refused to return to them and prays for her release on P.R. Bond. From the aforesaid materials on record it is evident that her parents are unfit and incapacitated to exercise control over her. Therefore, she is a 'child in need of care and protection' within the meaning of section 2(d)(iv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. In that view of the matter the question of releasing her at the present moment on her own bond, on the face of the facts she is not inclined to go to the custody of her parents, does not at all arise. I do not find any wrong in the order passed by the learned Court below and the impugned order does not deserve any interference.