Indrajeet Mahto And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3469 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2010 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Indrajeet Mahto son of Bhadai Mahto 2.

Dharmendra Singh son of Pundeo Singh 3.

Bhadai Mahto son of Janak Mahto 4.

Chandradeo Mahto son of Jhagru Mahto 5.

Manturan Devi wife of Bhadai Mahto All residents of Village - Semra Belwatiya, P.S. - Piprakothi 6.

Baijnath Mahto son of Mohan Mahto 7.

Rina Devi wife of Baidyanath Mahto 8.

Ramdeo Mahto son of Shivlagan Mahto 9.

Bhuari Devi wife of Shivlagan Mahto Petitioner Nos. 6 to 9 residents of village - Siswa, P.S. - Banjariya all within the District of East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Ramsakal Mahto son of Late Khedan Mahto resident of village - Madhubani Ghat, P.S. - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are accused in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No.243 of 2010 registered under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the written information of Opposite Party No.2.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3469 of 2015 dt.05-07-2019 2/3

3. Allegation is that on 02.11.2010, the petitioners kidnapped to the minor daughter of the informant. During investigation statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she had voluntarily married with petitioner Indrajeet Mahto. Since the marriage was not liked by the parents this false case has been lodged. The victim is specific that no one had kidnapped her. A copy of the statement is at Annexure-3.

4. After investigation of the case the police did not send up the petitioners for trial stating that this is a case of mistake of fact. However, by the impugned order dated 07.05.2011 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, differed with the police report and took cognizance under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, a compromise petition signed by the informant and other accused persons was filed on 23.09.2014 informing the learned Courtbelow that the parties have settled their dispute amicably.

5. Submission is that both are living as husband and wife and they are parents of a child. Hence, continuance of criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

6. No one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3469 of 2015 dt.05-07-2019 3/3 despite service of notice.

7. The report of the learned trial Judge reveals that case is pending for appearance of the accused.

8. Considering the facts aforesaid, it is evident that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the impugned order as well as the entire subsequent proceeding stands quashed and this application stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11.07.2019 Transmission Date 11.07.2019