Mukesh Rajbanshi @ Mukesh Kumar Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has been made accused in Karakat P.S.Case No.177 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012 under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR and investigation of the aforesaid case. One Lalan Singh gave a written complaint to the Officer- in-Charge of Karakat police station alleging therein that his minor daughter, namely, Kiran Kumari aged about 14 years who was a student of Middle School, Munji had been abducted by the accused persons including the petitioner. On the basis of the said written complaint, the aforesaid case was registered under Section Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1215 of 2012 (3) dt.08-01-2013 2 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the victim recorded in the school register is not correct. As a matter of fact, the victim is major and she out of her had eloped with the petitioner and subsequently married him in a temple. It has further been contended that the victim was examined by a medical board and the medical board has assessed her age to be between 18 to 19 years. The report of the medical board is dated 29.09.2012 and the same has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the writ petition is misconceived. The informant has claimed his daughter to be aged about 14 years. She is a student of middle school. In course of investigation, she was produced before Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has disclosed her age to be 16 years before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, who recorded his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also assessed the age of the victim to be 16 years. The victim has stated that she is a student of Class-VIII. Thus, it is submitted that the victim cannot be held to be a major. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1215 of 2012 (3) dt.08-01-2013 3 The petitioner has brought on record the order dated

29.09.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj(Rohtas). On perusal of the said order it goes to suggest that on 29.09.2012 the medical report was not available on record. By the said order, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the victim was ordered to be sent to the After Care Home at Gaighat, Patna. Admittedly, the case is under investigation. The present writ petition has been filed on

17.12.2012. Admittedly, till then the police had not submitted its report before the learned Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The report of the medical board dated 29.09.2012 had not been transmitted to the court. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to disclose the source from which the petitioner obtained the report of the medical board. Apparently, the report of the medical board has not been taken under the Right to Information Act. Since the medical board’s report is not a legally obtained document, this court would not take cognizance of the same. It is well known that investigation of a criminal case is done in a confidential manner. The medical examination of the victim was certainly a part of investigation. It is a matter of concern as to how the report could reach in the hands of the petitioner. Neither the accused nor his Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1215 of 2012 (3) dt.08-01-2013 4 agents are entitled to see the materials collected in course of investigation by the investigating agency. Of course, once the police submit its report, the Magistrate is obliged to furnish to the accused, the police report, the FIR, the statement recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164 and any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Sub-section-5 of Section 173. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has obtained copy of the medical board’s report even before the same the court. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas(Sasaram) is directed to make a thorough enquiry into the matter and find out as to how a confidential document could reach in the hands of the accused in course of investigation. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas(Sasaram) shall be free to take suitable action against the person found responsible for such mischief. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, as per the FIR, the victim was aged about 14 years only. In her own statement she has disclosed herself to be aged about 16 years. The learned Magistrate before whom she appeared has also assessed Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1215 of 2012 (3) dt.08-01-2013 5 her to be aged about 16 years. She is a student of Class-VIII. All these things indicate that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence. The contention of the petitioner that her date of birth has not been recorded correctly in the school register cannot be believed to be true for quashing the FIR. At this stage, this Court cannot hold the victim to be a major on the alleged date of occurrence on the basis of a medical board’s report which has yet not been filed in the court. The probative value of such report shall be seen in course of trial. The allegations made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, I am not inclined to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order by fax to the Superintendent of Police(Rohtas(Sasaram) for the needful. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) B.Kr./-