Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86700 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2016 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav, Son of Chandi Yadav, Resident of
Hathauri, P.S. - Hayaghat, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Prasad, Son of Kashi Nath Prasad, Resident of Baruhi, P.S. - Sahaar,
District - Bhojpur, at present residing at 44/2 Mahesh Nagar, Patel Nagar,
LBS Nagar, P.S. - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2016
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in
connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No.84 of 2016 (GR
No.1350 of 2016), whereby the learned jurisdictional
Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 363 and
366-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the
petitioner.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86700 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025
2/5
informant/O.P. No.2, namely, Vijay Prasad is that on
22.02.2016
at 2:00 PM, his daughter, namely, Nidhi Kumari
@ Sonalika Verma went to attend her classes but, she did not
returned till evening. Upon inquiry, some persons told that
she was seen in the park near RVI Gas office. It is further
alleged that his daughter left home with certificate of class-
10th, Bank pass book, ATM, 15 gms gold jewelery and a
mobile.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that the
present case was lodged under confusion by the father of
victim, where the victim after recovery recorded her
statement on 23.06.2016 stating therein that she went with
petitioner out of her own sweet will without informing any
family members and on next day, she solemnized marriage
with petitioner in temple at Darbhanga. It is submitted that
after the marriage, she was accepted by the parents of
petitioner and when she called her parents after one and half
months, she came to know that present kidnapping case was
lodged against petitioner/husband, whereafter her father told
her to come at her parental home, as some statement is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86700 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025
required with police and, as such, she came to the police and
got her statement recorded on 22.06.2016.
5. It is further submitted that O.P. No.2/victim
living happily with petitioner as wife and also having two
children. It is pointed out that the victim herself is the
deponent of this quashing petition.
6. The FIR was registered against unknown. As per
statement of the victim, now the informant, who is none but
her father also appears happy with this marriage.
7. Learned APP while opposing the quashing petition
submitted that the offences alleged are non-compoundable
but, fairly conceded out of statement of victim as recorded
under Section 164 of the CrPC that she solemnized marriage
with petitioner out of her own sweet will and living together
happily.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce
relevant paragraph of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as available through Ramgopal and Another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 14 SCC 531], which
are as under:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86700 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025
"19. We thus sum up and hold that as
opposed to Section 320 CrPC where the Court
is squarely guided by the compromise between
the parties in respect of offences
"compoundable" within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined
upon a High Court under Section 482 CrPC or
vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes
and bounds of Section 320 CrPC. Nonetheless,
we reiterate such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context
of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscience of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if
any;
19.3. Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the
victim; and
19.4. Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of
the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations."
9. Now, coming to the fact of this case, it appears
that no suspicion even raised through FIR against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86700 of 2024 dt.20-02-2025
petitioner with whom the victim went on her own and
solemnized marriage out of her own sweet will. They are living
happily together having two childrens. The victim had sworn
affidavit in favour of petitioner, who is now her husband. It
appears that the compromise between the parties voluntarily
in nature and thus by continuing with present proceeding
before the court below would only amount to abuse of the
process of the court of law.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order taking
cognizance dated 22.08.2016 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in connection with Shastri Nagar
P.S. Case No.84 of 2016 (GR No.1350 of 2016) is hereby
quashed and set aside.
11. The application stands allowed.
12. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01-03-2025
Transmission Date 01-03-2025
