Anand Kumar @ Golu @ Anand Kumar vs State Of Bihar

Mr. Vikash Kumar, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, a hard copy of which has been produced across the Board.

Let this also be taken on record.

Heard Mr. Prashant Kashyap, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar for the State.

The petitioner claims to have married respondent no. 14 but was subjected to a criminal charge of kidnapping her because the marriage of the petitioner with respondent no. 14 did not have the sanction of the parents of respondent no. 14.

The criminal case ultimately was closed but the father of respondent no. 14 filed a complaint case which was pending at the time when Cr.W.J.C. No. 1039 of 2022 preferred by the petitioner earlier was being decided.

At all the forums, the father of respondent no. 14 took the plea that respondent no. 14 was still a minor and also offered proof in support of his contention.

Be it noted that for all this while, because of the refusal of respondent no. 14 to go with her parents and there being no certainty about her majority, she was lodged in Balika Sudhar Grih, Kishanganj in terms of the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Saharsa.

Thus, while dealing with a criminal writ petition preferred by the petitioner, referred to above, the Court was of the view that with this dispute regarding the date of birth of respondent no. 14 and the matter being in sesin of Child Welfare Committee, Saharsa, it would only be appropriate that the parties be relegated to the C.W.C. Saharsa, to wrest out their cases with respect to age of respondent no. 14 as also the entitlement of the petitioner to accompany her wherever they both desired or the entitlement of the parents to have the custody of respondent no. 14, all of which would ultimately depend upon the age of the respondent no. 14 and her willingness, if at all she is found to be a major.

The Bench also clarified that if for any reason, anyone of the parties would remain aggrieved by any order of the CWC, Saharsa they could approach the necessary forum for vindication of their respective rights.

However, the Court directed the Superintendents of Police, Saharsa and Khagaria to set up a team of competent and upright officers to verify each and every documents which would be produced by the parties. The authenticity of the contents of such documents would be verified from the Institutions from where they would have been issued or from any other source which may be relevant.

A report was required to be prepared by the police, to be submitted to the Child Welfare Committee, Saharsa. Based on which report, the CWC, Saharsa was expected to take a decision at the earliest. A copy of the documents so collected by the Superintendent of Police of two districts was further directed to be intimated to the District and Sessions Judge, who is the district head of the Monitoring Committee relating to institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act), 2015.

When nothing happened, the petitioner has knocked the doors of courts again but with twin prayer that as on date, even if the date of birth suggested by the father of the respondent no. 14 is accepted to be true, she has crossed over the age and has become a major.

Under such circumstances, without any ado, if respondent no. 14 is willing to go with the petitioner, she should not be held back in Balika Sudhar Griha under any circumstance.

Simultaneously, it has bee prayed that a specific direction by a Division Bench of this Court was completely flouted by the two Superintendents of Police of two districts, who were entrusted with the task of preparing a report after vetting the documents for the benefit of CWC, Saharsa and a copy of those documents had to be forwarded to the District Judge in order to prevent any party attempting to back-paddle the issue.

Since nothing was done in that regard, a prayer also has been made for initiating suitable action against the aforenoted two Superintendents of Police.

Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the State has taken instructions from the concerned authority and has filed an affidavit intimating that the final order passed by the Bench, referred to above, was neither communicated to them by the petitioner or through the official channel.

No sooner was this brought to their notice, a Special Investigation Team has been constituted which has commenced with its work of verifying the documents. All that is required is the cooperation of the petitioner and the parents of respondent no. 14.

With respect to the co-operation of parents of respondent no. 14, we direct that in compliance of the earlier order passed by a Bench of this Court, the two Superintendents of Police of Saharsa and Khagaria would be required to take a pro-active step to get statements from the parents of respondent no. 14, verify the same and forward a report expeditiously to the CWC, Saharsa for taking a final call in the matter.

By the affidavit, we have also been informed that the POCSO Court has fixed a date on 30th of May, 2023, when respondent no. 14 has been summoned to remain present in the Court for taking a final decision in the matter.

We conclude this writ petition with a direction to the Superintendents of Police Saharsa and Khagaria to ensure that the Special Investigation Team constituted by them, shall get to the truth of the matter, a report would be prepared and the same would be placed before the CWC, Saharsa or on before the date so fixed by the POCSO Court, Saharsa.

The POCSO Court also shall be made known the contents of the orders passed by this Bench in the earlier writ petition and the present order.

In case it is found that the victim has become major, her willingness would be ascertained by the POCSO Court as also the other stake-holders and in case she wants to go with the petitioner, such exit of respondent no. 14 from the short-stay home shall be facilitated by the police.

This Court would brook of no further unnecessary explanation in the matter.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

If the needful is not done, it would be open for the petitioner to have this case revived by filing a two pages application.