A Darbhanga panchayat externed a newlywed couple from the village for seven years for marrying after elopement. It also imposed a Rs 10,000 penalty on the couple and ordered residents to socially boycott the bridegroom's family.

The panchayat's order came two days after Wasi Ahmad, 24, and his wife Dilsad, 20, returned to their native Loyam village in Darbhanga district, around 145km northeast of Patna, on Wednesday.

Wasi pleaded before the representatives not to punish him for such a silly mistake.

The representatives of the panchayat, however, didn't pay heed to his repeated requests and reiterated that it would be better to leave the village by Friday evening.

Darbhanga additional superintendent of police (ASP) Dilnawaz Ahmad ordered an investigation after the matter came to his knowledge on Friday. 'I have ordered an investigation into the matter and will also ensure that justice is done to the couple as they are adults,' the ASP said.

A rape survivor's family was recently asked by a panchayat in Muzaffarpur to accept Rs 500 as compensation and persuaded them not to report the incident to the police.

A panchayat in Jamui recently asked the family members of a youth charged with molestation to pay Rs 31,000 as compensation and also make a public apology. In another incident, an 11-year-old rape survivor was asked by the panchayat in Purnea district to wait till 18 so that she could marry her rapist.

However, there are other sides to the stories as well.

Several instances have come to the fore when cases of rape, molestation and elopement were solved at the panchayat level. For example, a 13-year-old girl was asked by the panchayat in Muzaffarpur to accept the amount fixed by it and undergo an abortion. No police complaint was lodged by the rape survivor on the panchayat's directive.

In Aurai and Bochaha blocks in Muzaffarpur, cases were lodged against the rape accused after the intervention of NGO Naripanchayat. A member of Naripanchayat, Sita Devi, said: 'Cases such as rape, eve teasing and sexual harassment are being settled at the panchayat level, which is a matter of concern.'

Praveen Kumar Rai, mukhiya of Taradhamaun panchayat in Samastipur, said the objective behind the initiative was to reduce the number of cases at the police station. 'It will lessen the burden on the judiciary,' he added.

Patna High Court lawyer Dinesh Kumar, however, termed the panchayat's initiative illegal. 'In all such cases, not only the members of the panchayat but also those who take part in the meeting should be treated as abettors and booked on the charge of abetment of crime. There is no provision of out of court settlement of criminal cases of serious nature,' he told The Telegraph.

Citing the 2013 Justice Verma Committee report, Kumar said: 'Apart from the provision of sentence under Section 376 of the IPC, the report had mentioned about the compensation to be paid to the victims, which shall be adequate to meet at least the medical expenses incurred by the victim.'