Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25781 of 2010 (2) dt.16-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25781 of 2010 ====================================================== RAJESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY S/O SHRI JOGESHWAR PRASAD CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE- BISHAMBHARPUR AILOTH, P.S. MISHARI GHARARI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY S/O LATE RAM LAKHAN CHAUDHARY 3. VINAY KUMAR 4. KANHAIYA KUMAR BOTH S/O SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY 5. DHARMSHILA DEVI W/O SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY ALL R/O VILLAGE TARA BARIYARPUR (NEAR DURGA ASTHAN) P.S. KHODAWANDPUR, DISTT. BEGUSARAI .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 2. 16.02.2012 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. No. 664/2009 allowing the revision application filed by the accused persons, and whereby he has set aside the order dated 14.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1497/ 2008 taking cognizance under [STATUTE] . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the statements of the complainant as well as the three witnesses, all of whom supported the prosecution, had found a prima facie case against the accused persons and in this view of the matter therefore, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25781 of 2010 (2) dt.16-02-2012 the Revisional Court not to have set aside the order of cognizance. 3. I find from the impugned Revisional order that the learned Sessions Judge has taken note of an earlier case in Musharigharari P.S. Case No. 30/2007 filed by the complainant regarding kidnapping of the latter’s wife and son. It has been observed that the wife and son of the complainant had not come under his custody therefore, and as such the offences alleged under [STATUTE] . would not arise, which fact has not been looked into by the learned Court below. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order of cognizance has been set aside with a direction to re-hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. In the above view of the matter, I find no illegality in the impugned revisional order which has rightly set aside the order of cognizance for passing orders afresh. 5. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.