Citation: Indu Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21262 of 2019, Patna High Court (Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha), decided on 01.10.2026 | CNR No. BRHC010328632019
A magistrate can differ from the police’s final report and take cognizance, but the order must show what material persuaded him to do so. When the victim herself does not support the allegation in her Section 164 CrPC statement and names no role of the accused, the police did not send them up for trial, and there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the High Court can quash the case under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process, even though a victim’s age requires sensitivity. A Section 164 statement is not substantive evidence, but it can be considered at the quashing stage. A decision quashing a case depends on its own facts and does not lay down a rule that a favourable Section 164 statement requires quashing every time.
The Patna High Court has quashed a kidnapping case against the parents and maternal uncle of a young man accused of luring away a 15-year-old girl. The girl’s father alleged that she left for coaching on 11 July 2018 and did not return, and he later learned that the young man had taken her on the promise of marriage. Girl’ father said the young man’s family threatened him when he went to their house, and he filed the written report only on 19 July, saying he had been searching for her and feared social consequences. After investigation, the police filed a final report (closure report) that did not send the young man’s parents and uncle up for trial. The magistrate disagreed with the police and took cognizance against them under Section 366A IPC (procuring a minor girl). In her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, the girl said that she had left home by herself because her parents scolded her about her studies and did not name any role of the three petitioners. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha accepted that a magistrate is not bound by a police closure report and can disagree with it. However, he held that the case had to be looked at as a whole, because three things came together: the FIR was lodged after a seven-day delay, the police did not send the petitioners up for trial, and the girl herself did not support the kidnapping allegation or attribute any role to them. Justice Jha said a Section 164 statement is not substantive evidence at a trial, but at this stage the court could not ignore it, as the girl herself did not support the foundation of the case. The court noted that the magistrate’s order did not say what persuaded him to differ from the police.
The Court relied on a similar earlier Patna High Court ruling and the Supreme Court’s Suresh Garodia and Vinod Gupta rulings, quashed the cognizance order and the case against the three petitioners, and made clear that it was not deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone else, including the young man himself, who is not a petitioner.