NITYA KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be the wife of one Jai Kishore Yadav and daughter of Shri Kishore Upadhayay (private respondent No 4). Respondent No. 4 has since appeared. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the first information report being Sidhwalia Police Station Case No. 85 of 2009 instituted under Sections 365, 372/34 of Indian Penal Code by respondent No. 4, her father alleging that the informant&aposs minor daughter (the petitioner) had been kidnapped by Shri Jai Kishore Yadav and his family members. Petitioner submits that she has been falsely shown as minor because she was in love with her husband and it was an intercaste marriage which was not approved by her father. It is because of that this false case has been lodged. Her case is that she has now married and, out of her own free will, residing peacefully with her husband at Ghaziabad. Respondent No. 4, the father and the informant has appeared and the lame excuse given by him is that when he was filling up the forms of the petitioner for her High School examination, as petitioner was a brilliant student, he had increased her age by 4 years or more. This is to falsify the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in which date of birth is shown as 12.7.1988 and, thus by all means, was not only a major but almost above 21 years old. This false statement of the informant has given rise to this untold harassment of the petitioner, her husband and her in -laws. On behalf of Superintendent of Police, who was expected to file counter affidavit especially with regard to petition (Annexure -4) filed before him by the alleged victim girl herself annexing all documents, the only thing is that he directed security to be provided to petitioner&aposs in -laws. The sorry state of affairs of police administration in this State is clearly reflected in the present case. The genuineness of the school certificate showing the date of birth of petitioner is not in dispute not even disputed by the petitioner&aposs father, the informant. Under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is clearly provided that where age of a person is in dispute, the primary evidence, which is virtually irrebuttable, is the Board&aposs certificate. That being so, I am sure the Superintendent of Police should have realised the falsity of the case. Evidently, it was a case of inter -caste marriage where private disputes were sought to be settled. This Court wonders the competence of not only the Superintendent of Police, but the Sub -Divisional Police Officer who is supposed to have supervised the case and found it to be true and recommends to Director General of Police against these Senior Police Officers and also to take appropriate action against respondent No. 4, the father and the informant for unnecessarily lodging false prosecution and wasting time of this Court and the Police and unnecessarily harassing the petitioner who happens to be his own daughter and other relations of her. On the face of it, once it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a major, there is nothing to investigate apart from filing prosecution for lodging false case against the informant himself.

(2.) IN view of the aforesaid facts, with the aforesaid directions, the writ application is allowed. The case in question is quashed.