Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36536 of 2008 ====================================================== Dr.Shankar Jha, Son of late Hari Jha, Resident of village Gangapur, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Gajendra Thakur, Son of Shri Ghuran Thakur, Resident of village Kaithiniya, P.S.-R.S. Shivir Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.36583 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Tej Narayan Jha, son of Mr. Krit Narayan Jha 2. Gauri Shankar Prasad Shrivastava, S/o Mr. Randhir Bahadur alias Dr. Runghun Prasad, Both of village Behat Tole Patharahi, P.O. & P.S. Thana Jhanjharpur R.S. Sibir, District Madhubani, Bihar. 3. Arun Kumar Thakur, s/o Mr. Roop Narayan Thakur 4. Kamal Narayan Thakur, son of Mr. Balbhadra Thakur 5. Hari Narayan Thakur, S/o Mr. Kamal Narayan Thakur 3 to 5 are resident of At & P.O. Kaithiniya, P.S. Jhanjharpur R.S. Sibir, District Madhubani, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Gajendra Thakur S/o Mr. Ghuran Thakur, resident of At & P.O. Kaithiniya, P.S.-R.S. Sibir, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani, Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 9 15-03-2012 Since both the petitions arise out of same order i.e. order dated 2.8.2008 passed by Fast Track Court,I, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No.657 of 2007, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36536 of 2008 (9) dt.15-03-2012 2 / 12 2 In both the petitions, petitioners have challenged the order whereby learned trial court has rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, who had appeared in both the cases on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that on the basis of averment made in the complaint petition itself, no offence is made out. Nor, during enquiry before the cognizance, any material was brought on record disclosing complicity of the petitioners of both the cases in the present case and as such at the time of charge, petition was filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been rejected by the impugned order, which requires to be interfered with. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that admittedly in this case, kidnapping of father of the informant was done in the year Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36536 of 2008 (9) dt.15-03-2012 3 / 12 3 1983 and thereafter, no step was taken by the complainant for filing any case and at belated stage in the year 2002, the present complaint petition was filed disclosing complicity of petitioners for commission of offences under [STATUTE] . In respect of petitioner Dr. Shankar Jha in Cr. Misc. No.36536 of 2008, learned Senior Counsel has referred to number of paragraphs of petition to show that the petitioner was a Medical Officer and he, for the first time, joined at Jhanjharpur in the year 1989 and as such there was no question for involvement of the petitioner in the present case. In this case, the opposite party no.2 has appeared through Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel. The opposite party no.2 has also filed a counter affidavit and brought on record depositions of witnesses which was recorded after framing of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36536 of 2008 (9) dt.15-03-2012 4 / 12 4 charge. It was submitted by Shri Mishra that discharge petition was rejected on 2.8.2008 and thereafter, charges were framed. During the trial, altogether six witnesses have already been examined and trial had proceeded. However, in view of order passed by this Court dated 18.7.2011, same has been stayed. It was further submitted that petitioner Dr. Shankar Jha, after enquiry, when was summoned, approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Cr. Misc. No.22066 of 2006. The said petition was specifically preferred against the order of cognizance dated 17.7.2002. The said petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court by assigning a detailed reason. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the petition in Cr. Misc. No.36536 of 2008. It was submitted that once on merit, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36536 of 2008 (9) dt.15-03-2012 5 / 12 5 this Court had already rejected the petition filed against the order of cognizance, this Court, at subsequent stage, may not enquire and examine evidences, which were brought on record before the order of cognizance. Since it has already been looked into by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court and repealed by this Court again examining same material may amount to review of earlier order, which is prohibited under the law. In reply, Shri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that even in the changed circumstances and even at the stage of evidence, this Court is well empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the case and quash the same. In support of his argument, he has referred to an order passed by Orissa High Court reported in 1985 Cr. Law Journal NOC 92 (Madan Mohan Agrawal Vs. State of Orissa) as well as an un-reported order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36536 of 2008 (9) dt.15-03-2012 6 / 12 6 No.12916 of 2009 (Shivshankar Chaudhary & others Vs. State of Bihar) disposed of on 21.12.2011. He submits that if Court is satisfied that there is no ground for proceeding with a case, this Court can interfere at any stage of a criminal case. He has further argued that even though the petition against order of cognizance was rejected by a Bench of this Court, this Court can re-examine and pass favoura

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.