Rajo Mahto @ Raju Mahto v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38485 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -191 Year- 2012 Thana -ROSERA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rajo Mahto @ Raju Mahto son of Sri Ram Mahto residence of village Gathara P.S. Rosra, District - Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Lal Pari Devi wife of Late Tej Narayan Singh residence of village - Chand Surari, P.O. - Chaura Tauaka P.S. Vibhutipur, District - Samastipur.

3. Anjani Kumari @ Ranjan Kumari, daughter of Late Tej Narayan Singh, resident of village Chand Surari, P.O.- Chaura Tauaka, P.S.- Vibhutipur, District- Samastipur.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Narayan Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner by filing this quashing application seeks setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 15.7.2013 passed by A.C.J.M., Rosera in Rosera P.S. Case no.191 of 2012 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 366(A) and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself was kidnapped by the other accused persons and was forcibly married in a temple with the daughter of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38485 of 2014 (4) dt.30-08-2017 2/2 informant.

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that other co-accused after enticing away the 13 years minor daughter of the informant got her married with the petitioner as the same has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. There is no any case lodged by the petitioner regarding his kidnapping and forcible marriage with the informant's daughter, so considering contents of the F.I.R. as well as the other materials it is not that it does not disclose any offence against him; so this application stands dismissed. (Arun Kumar, J) N.H./- U T