Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8921 of 2011 ====================================================== Stella Pradeep @ Aunty Ji wife of Pradeep Remi, resident of Christen Quarter, PS-Bettia Nagar, Distt.-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Stella Aanthoney Sahoo daughter of Aanthoney Serafin wife of Rajesh Raj, resident of Christian quarter, PS-Bettia Nagar, Distt.-West Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abishek, Adv. Mr. P.K.Dipak, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyanand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bettia in Complaint Case No. 2836C/2008, Trial No. 2616 of 2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . 3. From the record of the case it appears that before the present case a case was filed by Sheela Hansda vide Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No. 364 of 2008 under [STATUTE] in which Dipu Devid has been made an accused. From the narration of fact it appears that Sheela Hansda Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8921 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 2 / 4 2 was a maid servant of the present petitioner, namely, Stella Pradeep. Sunny, the son of Stella Aanthoney Sahoo was a friend of son of O.P. No. 2 who used to visit the house of O.P. No. 2 frequently. Son of O.P. No. 2 requested to Sheela Hansda for a maid servant as mother of Sunny was working in the office of S.D.O., always remained busy with the work of the office and could hardly had time for domestic work. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that she had brought one girl, namely, Babita from her native place and handed over to O.P. No. 2 where she was working as a maid servant. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that in the month of October of 2008 she received a telephonic call from her mistress about elopement/disappearance of Babita. She came back to Bettia and knew, Babita had fled away with one Dipu Devid. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that Dipu Devid allured Babita for marriage she fled away with him and had kept her at an undisclosed place. 4. The present case bearing Complaint Case No. 2836C/2008 has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the present petitioner Dipu Devid and Binay Liyo. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the petitioner had handed over a maid, namely, Babita to O.P. No. 2 and she had paid Rs. 4,400/- as an advance.Babita was working as a maid Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8921 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 3 / 4 3 servant and she developed intimacy with Dipu Devid who used to talk to Babita and always exerted pressure to leave the work and to go along with him. On the fateful day it has been alleged that Babita had gone to throw the garbage, Dipu David and Binay Liyo, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were waiting for her they took her away forcibly for the purpose of marriage. The court below after enquiry has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and issued summons to the petitioner to stand the trial. The counsel for the petitioner submits that from the narration of fact that has been mentioned in the complaint petition and earlier F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner has wrongly been made an accused and the court below has wrongly issued summons to the petitioner to face the trial. The counsel for the petitioner submits that from the admitted fact of the complaint petition it appears only that she had help the O.P. No. 2 by giving a maid servant and the O.P. No. 2 paid the remuneration of Rs. 4,400/- but later on Babita had developed the intimate relationship with Dipu Devid with whom she had gone for the purpose of the marriage and the counsel for the petitioner submits that from the fact mentioned in the F.I.R. and attending circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner and it is completely a malicious prosecution as there is no averment in the complaint petition either in the present case Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8921 of 2011 (3) dt.25-09-2012 4 / 4 4 or in the F.I.R. that has been lodged, has not been shown any connection with the disappearance of Babita. In this case, this Court had issued notice to O.P. No. 2 but she did not appear as such, this Court is deciding the case on the assistance given by the State. 5. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it appears from the complaint petition, only allegation made against the petitioner to have handed over Babita as a maid servant to O.P. No. 2 and Babita had fled away along with Dipu Devid for the purpose of her marriage and there is no whisper against the petitioner in any way connecting with the disappearance or elopement of Babita. 6. This Court finds that the present case against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 23.4.2010 against the petitioner is quashed and the court below is directed to proceed with the case against other accused persons. 7. With this observation, this petition is allowed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.