SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 2.1.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 3569C of 2005 under Sections 366, 506 read with Sec. 120(B) of the I.P.C. by the learned Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna issuing summons against the petitioners to stand trial alongwith the aforesaid case filed against the petitioners.

(2.) THE complaint case is that the complainant was tenant in the house of the maternal uncle of accused Sunil Kumar (Petitioner No. 1) who approached the complainant to keep him as a tutor to teach Triloki Pathak and Pooja Kumari, son and daughter of the complainant. Petitioner No. 2 who is mother of petitioner No. 1, requested the complainant to keep her son as a tutor as they had no source of income. The complainant allowed petitioner No. 1 to teach Triloki and Pooja Kumari. After lapse of time, petitioner No. 1 used to talk unnecessary things with Pooja Kumari, the daughter of the complainant and the complainant on hearing the same objected whereupon petitioner No. 1 became angry and threatened that he would kidnap Pooja Kumari to marry. It is alleged in the complaint that on 3.9.2004 the complainant alongwith his family members went to Ara, their native place. Pooja and her younger sister Bani Kumari were alone in their house situated at Kurji. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 alongwith petitioner accused No. 3 friend of victim Pooja the complaint came to the residence of the complainant and compelled Pooja to go with them. They took Pooja before Marriage Registrar Office and took forcibly signature on several papers and threatened her not to disclose about the said occurrence. The aforesaid victim Pooja Kumari could not tell about the occurrence to family members and she began to live with her parents with fear. On 1.12.2005 petitioner No. 1 came to the house of the complainant and began to shout saying that he had married with Pooja Kumari and asked the complainant to allow her to go with him. The complainant was shocked to know about the occurrence from petitioner No. 1. The case was accordingly lodged.

(3.) NOTICE was also issued to Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 Service was effected but they did not appear.