IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.16588 of 2008
SHANTI DEVI, W/O LBHOLA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BIJULKI, P.S. HALSI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2. 1.7.2010. Heard Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State.
The petitioner, who is informant in
Halsi P.S. Case No.18 of 2008 registered
under Sections 364, 384, 386, 120 B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, has prayed for quashing of
order dated 22.2.2008 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai to the
extent whereby the learned Magistrate has set
the victim girl at liberty and learned
Magistrate has not accepted the plea of the
petitioner that the victim girl may be handed
over to the informant-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner,
while pressing the present petition, submits
that the victim girl, who is daughter of the
informant, was on the date of passing of the
impugned order, was minor. Learned counsel
has also referred to Annexure-4 to the
2
petition, which is a copy of School Leaving
Certificate in which the date of birth has
been mentioned as 30.12.1993. It has been
submitted that on the date of the impugned
order, the victim girl was aged 15 years and,
accordingly, the learned Magistrate was not
required to release the victim without
handing over her custody to the informant.
Besides hearing learned counsel for
the parties, I have also perused the
materials available on record. The petitioner
has brought a copy of statement of victim
girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in which the victim had
disclosed her age as 21 years. Annexure-2A is
the copy of medical report which shows that
during the medical examination, the victim
was found as 21 years old. Perusal of the
impugned order shows that the learned
Magistrate, after examining the medical
report as well as considering the age of the
victim recorded in her statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has passed the impugned order and
set the victim at liberty without handing
over her custody to the informant.
3
This Court is satisfied that while
passing the impugned order, the learned
Magistrate has committed no error.
Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.)
N.H./