Indrajeet Mahto And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

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.

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.

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 Court-below that the parties have settled their dispute amicably.

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.

No one appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service of notice.

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

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.