URMILA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned A.P.P.

(2.) Two petitioners, have approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 25.9.2013 passed by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 519 of 2013 (arising out of Dewariya P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012), G.R. No. 523 of 2012 registered for the offence under section 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge was rejected.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbyan of one Nawal Kishore Singh an F.I.R. was lodged vide Dewariya P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 for the offences under sections 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons i.e. one Sanjay Sah and both the petitioners. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that his daughter namely, Priyanka Kumari, aged about 14 years on the date of occurrence i.e. on 18.3.2012 in the morning had gone to coaching centre and thereafter, she did not return. Subsequently, the petitioner tried to get information and finally, he came to know that accused Sanjay Sah had abducted the minor daughter of the informant for the purposes of marriage. Thereafter, he went to the house of the accused Sanjay Sah to enquire. It has been disclosed in the F.I.R. that the petitioner no. 1/wife of brother of Sanjay Sah and her daughter/petitioner no. 2 did not give proper reply and thereafter, the informant raised suspicion against the petitioners also besides the accused Sanjay Sah. During investigation the victim appeared and her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 6th June 2012. Before the learned Magistrate, she disclosed her age as 20 years. Even the learned Magistrate also assessed her age as 20 years. In her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. she made categorical statement that she had voluntarily gone with Sanjay Kumar Sah on 18.3.2012 i.e. on the date of occurrence to Gaziabad and she solemnized marriage with Sanjay Kumar Sah. She assured to produce marriage certificate. After conducting investigation the Police found no case under section 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during investigation one fact emerged that the person with whom the victim girl had married was already married having two children and as such, Police submitted final report no. 58 of 2012 on 14.6.2012 for offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. non-cognisable offence. It is case of the petitioner that after submission of final report the learned Magistrate differing with the police report took cognizance of offences under sections 363, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and case was committed to the court of sessions. At the time of discharge since there was no iota of material even to create doubt against the petitioners, the petitioners filed petition for their discharge, which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to certain facts disclosed in the case diary submits that save and except the doubt which was raised against the petitioners in the F.I.R. during investigation no material was collected against both the petitioners even then cognizance order was passed differing with the police report and the learned Sessions Judge without application of mind has rejected the discharge petition.