Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11253 of 2012 (2) dt.15-05-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11253 of 2012 ====================================================== Satyanarayan Das, S/O-Bhutai Das, Resident of Village-Misraulia, P.S.- Vaishali, District-Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. China Sahni, S/O-Late Garbhu Sahni, Resident of Village-Jagdish Misraulia, P.S. + Dist-Vaishali .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 15-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself without issuance of notice to Opposite Party No. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.05.2007 passed by Sri Sandeep Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali in Complaint Case No. C 957 of 2006 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] , ordered to issue process against the petitioner and other accused for procuring their attendance to face trial. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is attending the trial court for last three to four years but the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) has already left the pairvi of the aforesaid Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11253 of 2012 (2) dt.15-05-2012 case because his son has already returned to his home just after filing of the aforesaid complaint case. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no doubt, some of the co-accused have not appeared but the petitioner on each and every date appears before the trial court and the case of the petitioner is still pending particularly, in the circumstance when the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) has already left his interest in respect of the above stated case and, therefore, the continuance of the aforesaid prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince me but I am not, at all, convinced with the above stated submission because the last order sheet dated 22.12.2011 reveals that the case is pending for appearance of other co-accused. No doubt, the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) is also not appearing before the trial court but admittedly, the reason for pendency of the aforesaid case is non-appearance of other co- accused. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this petition stands disposed of on admission stage itself. However, the petitioner may raise his plea before the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11253 of 2012 (2) dt.15-05-2012 trial court at appropriate stage and furthermore, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner in accordance with law even by separating his case from the record of other co- accused. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 363

Statute Text:
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.