- (1.) This is a unique case of an unrelenting mother who refuses to accept the marriage of choice of her daughter and therefore, in prosecution of her own whims, in total abuse of process of the Court and abuse of process of the law has been initiating repeated criminal proceedings against the petitioners. While the kidnapee/the alleged victim of offence has been repeatedly saying that she has not been kidnapped, however, the complainant/the mother of the kidnapee has been repeatedly alleging that her daughter has been kidnapped.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that petitioner no.1, 'A' got married to 'R' (petitioner no.2). The marriage of choice of 'A' has not been accepted by respondent No.4, 'M' (mother of petitioner no.1) therefore, criminal proceedings were initiated vide Case Crime No.611 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366, 452 & 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bahraich. Accused in the said case were sent to jail, subsequently were released on bail. Charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer.
(3.) It transpires that after conclusion of investigation of Case Crime No.611 of 2012 (Annexure No.3) , the case went to trial in which the alleged kidnappee 'A' (petitioner no.1) was produced in court on 19.11.2015, as prosecution witness no.2. The statement given by 'A' in Court on oath is available on record as Annexure no.3 collectively. In the statement, 'A' has stated that on the date of incident she was nineteen years of age. She had not been kidnapped. She went to Kathmandu with 'R'. 'R' had not taken her to Kathmandu, rather 'A' had taken 'R' to Kathmandu. The other accused had not conspired with 'R' to take her away. She stayed in Kathmandu for two years with 'R' as his wife. From Kathmandu, 'A' went to Bahraich of her free will and appeared in the Police Station. In the cross-examination, 'A' disowned her statement recorded in the course of investigation and reiterated the examination-in-chief version.;