The Patna High Court has set aside a Bhojpur Magistrate’s Section 366A cognizance order against the parents and maternal uncle of a man accused of taking away a 15-year-old schoolgirl, noting that the girl did not support the kidnapping allegation before a Magistrate and that the police had not sent the three up for trial.
Patna: The Patna High Court has quashed a December 18, 2018 order by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bhojpur at Ara, differing from a police final form, took cognizance under Section 366(A) IPC against the parents and maternal uncle of the main accused in a 2018 missing-minor case, and ended the proceeding against them [Indu Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.].
A single-judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, in an oral judgment on October 1, 2026, allowed the Section 482 CrPC petition of Indu Devi, Awadh Narayan Singh @ Haridwar Singh and Aman Kumar.
Background of the case
The girl’s father alleged in his written report that his daughter, then about 15 and a Class X student, left for a coaching class on July 11, 2018 and did not return, that the main accused had taken her away on the pretext of marriage, and that the accused’s family threatened him when he went to their house. Citing fear of social consequences, he lodged the report on July 19, 2018, and Piro P.S. Case No. 244 of 2018 was registered.
The police filed Final Form/Report No. 197/18 on September 23, 2018 without sending the petitioners up for trial. On December 18, 2018, the Magistrate differed and took cognizance against them. The main accused was not a petitioner. The allegations remain untested; no view is expressed on the merits against any person, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Arguments before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order gave no sustainable basis for departing from the police conclusion, pointed to the seven-day delay in the FIR, and relied on the girl’s Section 164 CrPC statement, in which, they said, she stated that she left home herself after her parents scolded her over her studies and attributed no act to the petitioners. They cited a co-ordinate Bench ruling in Krishna Mahto @ Krishan Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. and Supreme Court rulings in Suresh Garodia and Vinod Gupta.
The State of Bihar replied that a Magistrate is not bound by a final form and that a Section 164 statement is not conclusive. Counsel for the informant said the case concerned a minor and should not be ended at the threshold.
What the Court said
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha accepted that the police opinion does not bind a Magistrate, but explained why the final form still mattered:
“The significance of the final form, therefore, lies not in the proposition that the Magistrate was bound by it, but in the fact that the police investigation did not corroborate the allegations against the present petitioners to the extent necessary for sending them up for trial.”
On Section 366(A), which punishes the procuration of a minor girl, the Court held:
“Therefore, the mere circumstance that the girl was a minor, by itself, does not dispense with the requirement of examining whether the foundational allegations constituting the offence are available against the particular accused sought to be prosecuted.”
It found a “convergence of three circumstances”: the delayed FIR, the final form, and a Section 164 statement that neither supported the kidnapping allegation nor named any role for the petitioners. Responding to the informant, it said:
“It is true that the allegations concerning a minor girl require the Court to approach the matter with due sensitivity. However, sensitivity cannot mean that the Court must disregard material which forms part of the investigation itself.”
Outcome
Holding that a trial of the petitioners “would not advance the cause of justice”, the Court quashed the cognizance order and the proceeding insofar as Indu Devi, Awadh Narayan Singh @ Haridwar Singh and Aman Kumar are concerned, adding that its observations are not an adjudication on the guilt or innocence of any other person.
Why The Section 366A Cognizance Judgment Matters
A Magistrate may take cognizance despite a police final form, and Section 482 CrPC is used sparingly. The ruling leaves both principles intact but holds that, at the quashing stage, the final form, the FIR delay and the girl’s own statement can be weighed together to ask whether each named person has a case to answer. The Court also said a Magistrate who differs from the police must disclose the material relied on.
The practical effect is for relatives named alongside a main accused when a minor girl goes missing. The Court stressed that its view turns on these facts and that a favourable Section 164 statement does not mean every such proceeding “must necessarily be quashed”.
Case Title: Indu Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21262 of 2019]
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026 (oral judgment)
Appearances: Advocates Harsh Singh and Abhijeet for the Petitioners; Rajendra Nath Jha, APP, for the State
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
If you know of a child who is in danger, missing or in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098, a free 24-hour helpline.
