Case Background
The matter arose from Piro P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 in district Bhojpur. The informant, opposite party no.2, reported that his minor daughter Nisha Kumari, aged about 15 years and a Class X student of Lahrabad Government School, went missing on 11.07.2018.
According to the written report, she had gone at about 6:00 A.M. to attend coaching at Adarsh Coaching Centre near Oswalia mod and did not return home till late evening. The family searched for her.
The report further stated that the informant later received information that one Amit Kumar had taken away his daughter by alluring her on the pretext of marriage. When he went to Amit Kumar’s house, it was alleged that Amit’s parents and cousin threatened him and forced him to leave.
The informant did not immediately go to the police. He said he was searching for his daughter and was afraid of social consequences. Finally, he submitted a written report on 19.07.2018, eight days after the girl had gone missing. On this report, Piro P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 was registered.
Investigation started. The three petitioners before the Patna High Court are the parents and maternal uncle of Amit Kumar. Amit himself was not a petitioner in this application.
After investigation, the police submitted Final Form/Report No.197/18 dated 23.09.2018. In this final form, the present petitioners were not sent up for trial. The police did not find sufficient material to prosecute them.
During investigation, the statement of the victim girl was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate.
Despite the final form in favour of the petitioners, the learned A.C.J.M.-I, Bhojpur at Ara, by order dated 18.12.2018, disagreed with the police report. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
The petitioners then approached the Patna High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the cognizance order and the criminal proceeding against them.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, heard the parties and examined whether continuing the criminal case against these petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
The petitioners argued that the Magistrate’s order lacked any sound reason for disagreeing with the final form. They stressed that the police, after full investigation, had not found enough material to prosecute them and had not sent them up for trial.
They also highlighted the seven-day gap between the alleged disappearance on 11.07.2018 and the lodging of the written report on 19.07.2018. According to them, the explanation of searching for the girl and being afraid of society did not satisfactorily explain the later implication of these relatives, especially when the victim herself had not supported any kidnapping allegation against them.
A key plank of their case was the victim’s own statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioners pointed out that, in this statement before a Magistrate, the girl did not say that she had been kidnapped or taken away by the petitioners. Instead, she said she had left her house on her own because her parents scolded her about her studies. She made no allegation and did not attribute any overt act to the petitioners.
The petitioners relied on a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No.48023 of 2013, Krishna Mahto @ Krishan Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., decided on 11.05.2017. In that case, involving Section 366(A)/34 IPC, the victim’s Section 164 statement did not support the kidnapping allegation, the police filed final form treating the case as a mistake of fact, yet the Magistrate still took cognizance. The Co-ordinate Bench quashed the cognizance and the entire proceeding after examining the FIR, Section 164 statement, final form and case diary.
They further cited recent Supreme Court judgments. In Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 38, the Supreme Court treated delay in lodging an FIR, and the surrounding circumstances, as relevant factors while considering whether continuation of a case would be an abuse of process. In Vinod Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 INSC 181, the Supreme Court examined discrepancies between the FIR and the Section 164 statement while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel opposed the petition. He argued that the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police in the final report and can independently look into the case diary material to see whether an offence is made out. He also contended that a Section 164 statement should not be treated as conclusive proof of truth or falsity of the prosecution case.
Counsel for opposite party no.2 (the informant) also opposed the quashing. He argued that since the allegation related to a minor girl, the case should not be thrown out at the initial stage merely on the strength of the victim’s statement relied upon by the accused.
The Patna High Court first noted the settled principles. It acknowledged that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be used sparingly and with caution, and that the Magistrate is not bound by the police’s final report.
However, the Court emphasized that the inherent power exists precisely to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the court’s process. The mere fact that cognizance has been taken does not bar the High Court from examining whether a case should proceed against particular persons.
The Court then looked at all circumstances together, rather than in isolation. It identified three key aspects: the delay of about seven days in lodging the FIR; the final form in which the petitioners were not sent up for trial; and the victim’s Section 164 statement where she did not support the allegation of kidnapping or name the petitioners.
The Court also discussed Section 366(A) IPC, which deals with procuration of a minor girl. It explained that this offence requires an act of inducing a minor girl to go from any place or to do any act, with the intention or knowledge that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. The mere fact that the girl is a minor is not enough; there must be specific foundational allegations against the particular accused.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sat Prakash v. State of Haryana and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 475. Paragraphs 5 and 6, quoted in the judgment, make it clear that for Section 366-A IPC to apply, the inducement of the minor must relate to the intention that she be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Without such an element, the charge under Section 366-A cannot be sustained.
In the present case, the High Court observed that investigation did not generate enough material against the petitioners, leading the police to file a final form not sending them up for trial. The Court viewed this not as binding on the Magistrate, but as an important indication that the allegations had not been corroborated.
The Court then treated the victim’s Section 164 statement as crucial background material. It clarified that such a statement is not substantive evidence for trial, but at the Section 482 stage, where the Court is considering whether there is even a basic foundation to proceed, this statement cannot be ignored.
Here, the victim’s statement, as placed before the Court, showed that she left home voluntarily because she was scolded by her parents regarding studies, and she did not allege that the petitioners had kidnapped or induced her in any manner.
In light of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Krishna Mahto and the Supreme Court’s approach in Suresh Garodia and Vinod Gupta, the Court concluded that it must look at the totality of circumstances, not mechanically allow prosecution merely because cognizance has been taken or because the case involves a minor.
The Court underlined that while sensitivity is required in cases involving minor girls, sensitivity cannot justify ignoring investigation material that undermines the very basis of the allegation against specific accused.
After weighing everything, the Court held that there was no sufficient factual foundation to subject these petitioners to a criminal trial for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC.
The Magistrate had the power to disagree with the final form, but the impugned order did not disclose what material in the case diary justified taking cognizance against these petitioners in spite of the final form and the victim’s statement. On the material available, continuing the proceeding would not advance the cause of justice.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-I, Bhojpur at Ara so far as it related to the present petitioners. It also quashed the criminal proceeding arising out of Piro P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 against the petitioners Indu Devi, Awadh Narayan Singh @ Haridwar Singh and Aman Kumar.
The Court made it clear that its observations were confined only to examining the legality of the criminal proceeding against these petitioners. It did not decide the guilt or innocence of any other person involved in the case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for families and relatives who are often added as accused in sensitive cases without clear supporting material.
The Patna High Court has shown that, even in cases involving minor girls and serious charges like Section 366(A) IPC, relatives cannot be forced to face trial when investigation and the victim’s own statement do not support allegations against them.
The decision also underlines that delay in lodging an FIR, the result of police investigation, and the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can all be looked at together. If, taken cumulatively, they show lack of foundation against particular accused, the High Court can stop the case using its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
For ordinary people, the case demonstrates that higher courts can intervene when criminal law appears to be used as pressure or harassment against family members, especially where the main complainant version is not supported by the victim.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the criminal proceeding under Section 366(A) IPC should continue against the petitioners when the police final form did not send them up for trial and the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement did not support kidnapping allegations against them.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that, considering the delay in FIR, the final form, and the victim’s statement together, there was no sufficient factual foundation to prosecute the petitioners, and continuation of the case against them would be an abuse of process.
Issue: Can the Magistrate differ from the police final report, and if so, is such disagreement alone immune from interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
Answer: The Magistrate may disagree with the final form, but the High Court can still examine under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whether the material actually justifies taking cognizance. In this case, the Magistrate’s order, insofar as it related to the petitioners, lacked adequate basis and was quashed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Krishna Mahto @ Krishan Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., Cr. Misc. No.48023 of 2013, Patna High Court, decided on 11.05.2017.
- Suresh Garodia v. State of Assam & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 38.
- Vinod Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 INSC 181.
- Sat Prakash v. State of Haryana and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 475.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No.21262 of 2019; CNR No. BRHC010328632019; arising out of P.S. Case No.244 of 2018, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur.
Case Title: Indu Devi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha.
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 291
Advocates: Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate and Mr. Abhijeet, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP for the State. Name of counsel for opposite party no.2 is not mentioned in the judgment.
Nature of the Case: Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of an order of cognizance under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and consequential criminal proceedings.
Date of Judgment: 01.10.2026.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyMTI2MiMyMDE5IzEjTg==-Q4Zsf–am1–NqTaQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
