Bharat Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kaimur, in CIS Sessions Trial No.155/2019 (arising out of Bhabua P.S. Case No.245 of 2007), whereby petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge was dismissed.

The case is based upon fardbeyan of the victim/informant before the Officer-in-Charge leading to the lodging of the First Information Report and the facts of the case are that on 11.06.2007, the victim/informant was taken to Varanasi by the petitioner and the other co-accused persons on the pretext of providing medical treatment. It is alleged that, upon reaching Varanasi, she was forcibly made to marry the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that false and fabricated allegations had been made against the petitioner in the FIR only with a view to extract money and as a matter of fact, it was the mother of the informant herself who had approached the petitioner for marriage of her daughter, who was aged about 18 to 19 years, as the wife of the petitioner had died and she had accompanied her daughter to Varanasi where marriage had been performed in a temple. Such petition had been filed by the mother of the informant herself (Annexure-2) wherein this fact was also accepted that after marriage the informant was taken to her parents place and the gauna was to be held after a few years.

The statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also does not allege that any sexual act or wrong was committed upon her and so far as the applicability of Section 366A etc., of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) is concerned, in view of the petition filed by the mother of the informant herself, no offence under the said Section would be made out wherein age of the informant has been claimed to be around 18 to 19 years and the mother of the informant has herself accepted to have accompanied her daughter to Varanasi. Further, submission is that there is no question of the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 being applicable as the said Act did not come into force at the time of lodging of the FIR. The main ground upon which the learned counsel thrusts his submission is that the informant herself has entered into a compromise by way of filing the compromise petition before the learned C.J.M., Bhabua (Annexure-3), wherein she has clearly stipulated that she does not want to further proceed in the case. As a matter of fact, the informant is now married and is leading a peaceful conjugal life and in such view of the matter also she is not interested in pursuing present case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 supported the factum of compromise and also the fact that the informant/victim is now married and does not want to pursue the case any further.

I have heard contentions raised on behalf of both the parties and have also noticed that the present FIR was lodged in the year 2007 and much water has flown since then, the present position being such that the informant/victim is now married and leading a peaceful life and is thus not desirous of any disturbance being caused in her peaceful conjugal life by the present case. As such, she does not want to pursue any further.

This Court has also taken note of the fact that it was the mother of the informant, who had accompanied her along with petitioner, as such, the allegations levelled in the present case would not be made out as against the present petitioner. It is also a fact that no allegations of any sexual assault etc., has been made against the petitioner and the petitioner is praying for discharge from the offences under Sections 366A of the IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. In the facts of the case, offence under Section 366A of IPC does not seem to be made out and so far as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is concerned, the said act did not even come to force at the time of lodging of the FIR. Moreover, considering the fact that the case is of the year 2007 and now the informant/O.P. No.2 is married and does not want to pursue the case, the continuance of the present criminal proceeding is capable of causing disturbance and havoc in the peaceful life of a married girl, as such, this Court would invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in securing the ends of justice, in terms of the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 355.

Considering the entire factual scenario and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kaimur, in CIS Sessions Trial No.155/2019 (arising out of Bhabua P.S. Case No.245 of 2007), whereby discharge was dismissed, is quashed.

Accordingly the present application stands allowed.