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: 366

Statute Text:
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or to cause her defilement etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.