AMARJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the sole F.I.R. named accused in S. Tr. No. 1028 of 2006, arising out of Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No. 189/06, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.10.2006 passed therein by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court. -III, Patna, whereby he has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections -365, 366(A), 376, 342/34 I.P.C.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, one B.K. Jha submitted a written report on 19.2.2006 before the Officer Incharge of Shastrinagar Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 14.2.2006 he had lodged a Sanha No. 145/14 about the missing of his minor daughter, Amrita, who had not returned back to the house and that he had come to know from a reliable source that one Amarjeet, a resident of Village - Dehuli, had kidnapped his daughter with the help of other persons as a few months preceding thereto Amrita had slapped him for eve teasing and Amarjeet had extended threat to teach her a lesson. It has also been stated that Amrita had disclosed about the occurrence to her family members, who had taken it lightly and had told her to go to College without any fear. It has also been stated that Amarjeet was a frequent visitor to the house of his neighbour and was also seen roaming in the Mohalla with others, but the informant did not pay any heed thereto. It has further been stated that when the informant came to know that the kidnapper of his daughter was Amarjeet, he went to the house of Amarjeet with co -villagers, Kumud Kumar Jha and Kamal Jha where Amarjeet was found absconding from the house after locking the same. The informant has further stated that he gathered from the villagers of Amarjeet's Village that on the relevant date, Amarjeet had come to the village with a girl and on that very night he had left the village with her.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also sought to submit that from perusal of the Certificate of marriage, which is Annexure -3 to the application, it would appear that the marriage of the victim girl was solemnized with the petitioner on 5.1.2006 and the application for registration of marriage was already filed on 9.1.2006 before the Marriage Officer, Raghunathpur, Purulia and the marriage was registered on 21.2.2006, and as such, the allegation of kidnapping as attributed to the petitioner was non est. It has further been submitted that from perusal of Complaint Case No. 558(C) of 2006 filed by the Victim girl against her parents and brother, a copy whereof is Annexure -4 to the application, it would appear that she herself stated in the Complaint Petition that she had selected Amarjeet Kumar as her husband, but her family members had opposed the same and had created obstacles. It would also appear that she had prayed for proper security for herself from her parents, brother and other family members and after considering the same the Court was pleased to send the victim girl to remand home on 1.3.2006.