Raj Kumar Yadav vs The State of Bihar and Others

Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in this application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner has approached this Court in inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in T.R. No. 5026 of 2009 arising out of Mohamadpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner.

It appears that opposite party no. 2, Mishri Lal Das, filed a Complaint Case No. 2240 of 2007 regarding kidnapping of his niece, Mamta Kumari, opposite party no. 3, against the accused-petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav, which was forwarded u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned police station for investigation and submission of final form and, accordingly, Mohamadpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 was instituted u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner and on investigation police submitted the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner through the impugned order dated 20.10.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari, moved from her house on her own sweet will and performed the marriage with the accused-petitioner and there is now two children born due to their wedlock. As such continuance of criminal proceeding is not justified and placed reliance on a decision reported in case of [2010 (4) PLJR 50] Md. Aminuddin Khan @ Aminuddin Ahamad Khan @ Golden vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 made submission that the accused-petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav and opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari is now leading the happy conjugal life and they have two children born due to their wedlock. It is further submitted that at present continuance of proceeding would amount to disturb in their conjugal life. A counter affidavit has also been filed by opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari, in which she has specifically stated in paragraph no. 4 that she moved from her house on her own sweet will and performed the marriage with the accused-petitioner and now she has two children and she is leading her conjugal life with her husband, Raj Kumar Yadav (accused-petitioner) happily.

Admittedly, the accused-petitioner, Raj Kumar Yadav is leading the happy conjugal life with opposite party no. 3, Mamta Kumari and two children were born due to their wedlock. As such, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would not be justifiable and in the interest of justice. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 20.10.2009 passed in T.R. No. 5026 of 2009, arising out of Mohamadpur (Gopalganj) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj and further proceeding in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed.