Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1351 of 2009 ====================================================== Raghubansh Singh son of late Ram Shreshth Singh, resident of village- Chakbajo, P.S. Saraia, Dist. Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dineshwar Singh, son of Ram Lakhan Singh 3. Kanhaia Prasad Singh son of Dineshwar Singh, 4. Anjani Kumar @ Chiku Singh 5. Amit Kumar Singh @ Dhirendra Singh, both sons of Bhuneshwar Singh All are resident of Village- Chakbajo, P.S. Saraia, Dist.- Muzaffarpur .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP For O.P. No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 07-12-2012 Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 22.04.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1206 of 2008/ Trial no. 4652 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, whereby cognizance has been taken against the accused persons only for offences under [STATUTE] , but no cognizance has been taken for major offences under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid complaint Case No. 1206 of 2008 was filed in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur with an allegation that the complainant’s son, Chandra Shekhar Singh, has been abducted by the accused persons named in the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1351 of 2009 (5) dt.07-12-2012 2 / 3 2 petition of complaint. The complaint was examined on solemn affirmation. Thereafter, in course of enquiry two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, learned Judicial Magistrate without considering the materials available on record in its proper perspective, has taken cognizance against the accused persons for minor offences under [STATUTE] , but has not taken cognizance for major offences under [STATUTE] . In response to the query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that victim is still traceless and has not returned to his house till date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to 5 has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned order. He submits that the learned Magistrate had called for a report from the local police, who reported that the victim himself is an accused in several criminal cases and, may be in hiding and, therefore, cognizance has not been taken for major offences under [STATUTE] . After having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly, the victim is still traceless. If the victim was abducted by the accused persons and he has not returned to his house, then certainly a case under [STATUTE] is made out against the accused persons. However, if the victim is accused in other criminal cases and for that reason, he is either absconding or has gone into hiding, then that being a question of fact was required to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1351 of 2009 (5) dt.07-12-2012 3 / 3 3 be recorded by the learned Magistrate, after getting the facts properly enquired into/ verified by the local police and by getting a correct report with respect to whereabouts of the victim. Obviously, this has not been done in the present case. In the result, the impugned order dated 22.04.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1206 of 2008/ Trial No. 4652 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned court below for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Since the matter has already been delayed, the learned Magistrate shall make all endeavours to pass a fresh order in accordance with law at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Lower court records received in compliance of the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court be transmitted to the learned court below forthwith. The application stands allowed with the observations and directions made above. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 365

Statute Text:
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.