SK MINHASUDDIN MOULA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and has prayed for quashing the cognisance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nimapara, in G. R. Case No. 223 of 1984 under Section 363. Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner he is a permanent resident of Charinagal under Barchana Police Station, but is serving as an Arabic teacher at Bangalore. On the basis of a First information Report lodged by one Kariman Bibi, P. S. Case No. 86 of 1984 was instituted by the Officer -in -charge of Nimapara Police Station. The allegations in the said F. I. R. are to the effect that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor girl of the informant on 22.5.1984 by practising some witchcraft and the age of the girl is 13 years. The Police in course of investigation also recorded the statements of several witnesses. Charge -sheet has not yet been field in this case and at this stage, the present petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the proceedings.

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. Misra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the girl is more than 19 years of age and she on her own volition has left her house and has married the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel places reliance on the certificate issued by a retired Radiologist Dr. C.B. Mohanty, which has been annexed to the application as Annexure -3 and also the marriage certificate which has been annexed to the application as Annexure -2. In addition, an affidavit of the girl, Samsara Bibi, indicating that she has married out of her own free will and volition has also been annexed to the application as Annexure -4. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel, submits that if these documents are taken into consideration, ft will be clearly established that the petitioner has not kidnapped Samsara Bibi out of the lawful guardianship of the complainant -informant and, therefore, the offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, cannot be attracted. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention will not hold good in the eye of law.

(3.) IN the result, I find no merit in the application and, therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.