Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52148 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Sita Devi Wife of Ramesh Ram. 2. Malti Devi, Wife of Late Baldeo Ram. 3. Ramesh Ram Son of Late Baldeo Ram. 4. Dinesh Ram Son of Late Baldeo Ram. 5. Umesh Ram Son of Late Baldeo Ram. 6. Suresh Ram Son of Late Baldeo Ram. All residents of village – Thakur Tola Bithuar, P.S. – Pandawal, District – Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dashrath Vaiyar Son of Late Munshijee Vaiyar, Advocate, Resident of Mohalla – Friends Colony Madhubani, P.S. - Madhubani Town, District – Madhubani. 3. Priyanka Wife of Umesh Ram , Resident of Village – Thakur Tola, Bithuar, P.S. – Pandawal, District – Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 07-03-2012 Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pranav Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 07.11.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in Madhubani Town P.S. Case 98 of 2005 . By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though Police had submitted final report, the learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52148 of 2008 (4) dt.07-03-2012 2 / 2 2 Magistrate differing with the final report has taken cognizance of the offence. It has also been argued that the petitioner no. 1 and 6 are Government employees and at the time of occurrence they were already on duty and they were falsely implicated. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. In this case, initially, charge sheet was submitted against one accused person. However, at subsequent stage, Final Report was submitted by the Police. However, the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the materials available in the Case Diary has passed the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the order. The petition stands dismissed. If so advised, the petitioners may take plea which has been taken in the present case or any other point at appropriate stage. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 364

Statute Text:
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.