Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22708 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Rajeev Kumar @ Pinku Kumar Mahto son of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary. 2. Rakesh Kumar @ Bikki Kumar Mahto. 3. Rajesh Kumar @ Bittu Kumar Mahto. Both sons of Sheojee Mahto 4. Sheojee Mahto son of late Puna Mahto. 5. Chandra Shekhar Mahto @ Chandra Shekhar Choudhary son of late Suraj Narayan Choudhary. 6. Shanti Devi @ Shanti Kumari wife of Sheojee Mahto. 7. Ahilya Devi @ Shyama Payari Devi wife of Chandra Shekhar Choudhary. 8. Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Mahto son of Ramu @ Rama Mahto. 9. Pravin Kumar Sinha son of Narayan Sinha. All residents of Mohalla-Mungeriganj, P.S.-Nagar Begusarai, District-Begusarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Asha Devi wife of Chandradeo Mahto, resident of Village-Lakho (Mahatma Gandhi Tola), P.S.-Mufassil, District-Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Adv. CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 6 08-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 24.03.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 1272 C of 2000 by the Court of Sri R.K. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, summoning the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22708 of 2008 (6) dt.08-02-2012 2/3 accused named in the complaint petition including the petitioners, on enquiry under [STATUTE] . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the complaint case No. 1272 C of 2000, filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, Asha Devi is nothing but the counter blast of Complaint Case No. 1244 C of 2000, filed by Bishundeo Mahto through his Advocate, Dhirendra Prasad. The opposite party no.2, Asha Devi, has made the witnesses of Complaint Case No.1244C of 2000 as accused and the Advocate of that case alongwith the petitioners with ulterior motive only to harass. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statement of the witnesses, as recorded in course of enquiry, arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under [STATUTE] is made out against the accused named in the complaint petition including the petitioners and, accordingly, summoned them. Apparently, there is no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22708 of 2008 (6) dt.08-02-2012 3/3 of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all defence, raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 365

Statute Text:
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.