Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16628 of 2010 (6) dt.17-07-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16628 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Baldeo Mandal S/O Late Chamru Mandal 2. Shanti Devi W/O Sri Baldeo Mandal 3. Meera Devi W/O Sri Dilip Mandal All resident of Village Baida P.S.Kadwa District Katihar. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Baijnath Mandal S/O Late Kumaru Mandal 3. Punam Devi D/o Sri Baijnath Mandal Both resident of village Madheypur P.S.Mufassil Dist.-Katihar. .... .... Opposite Parties Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhola Prasad Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal For the State : Ms. Puspa Sinha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 6 13-07-2012 1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. II, Katihar in Sessions trial no 93/2009 by which and whereunder he rejected the discharged petition filed under section 227 of the Cr. P. C on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Baijnath Mandal filed a complaint case bearing Complaint case no.2268/2004 against the petitioners and one Dilip Kumar Mandal alleging therein that his daughter, namely, Punam Devi, was married with Dilip Kumar Mandal on 16.6.1991 but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non- fulfillment of illegal demand for which his daughter filed Kadwa P.S. case no. 149/1995 against her husband and in-laws and also filed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16628 of 2010 (6) dt.17-07-2012 2 maintenance case bearing Case no. 76/1995 against her husband. The aforesaid two cases were disposed off on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. After disposal of the aforesaid cases, accused Dilip Kumar Mandal executed an agreement on 9.4.2004 to this effect that his share would be given to the aforesaid Punam Devi but he filed Matrimonial suit no. 27/2004 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of District Judge, Katihar. The aforesaid Punam Devi went to her sasural on 2.7.2004 but in spite of direction of District Judge, Katihar, in Matrimonial suit no. 27/2004, accused Dilip Kumar Mandal did not produce the aforesaid Punam Devi before learned District Judge, Katihar rather a petition was filed on 29.10.2004 on behalf of the aforesaid accused Dilip Kumar Mandal mentioning this fact that Punam Devi left her in-laws’ house along with her all belongings on 4.10.2004. The opposite party no.2 made hectic search of his daughter and lastly, filed the aforesaid complaint case. 3. After due enquiry, prima facie case under [STATUTE] was found and the case was committed to the court of sessions whereas a petition under section 227 of the Cr.P.C was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying therein to discharge them from the aforesaid case but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. II, Katihar rejected the aforesaid prayer passing the impugned order against which this quashing petition has been filed. 4. It would be appropriate to mention certain facts which had taken place before passing rejection order dated 19.4.2010. 5. Petitioners and accused Dilip Kumar Mandal filed Cr. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16628 of 2010 (6) dt.17-07-2012 3 Misc. no. 93/2006 before this court for quashing the order dated 27.4.2005 by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar found prima facie case under [STATUTE] against the petitioners and aforesaid accused Dilip Kumar Mandal. The above stated Cr. Misc. no. 93/2006 was dismissed by this court vide order dated 13.2.2007 with a direction to S.P, Katihar for making appropriate enquiry so that missing Punam Devi could be traced out at the earliest. 6. It is also important to mention here that before passing the impugned order dated 19.4.2010 victim, Punam Devi, was recovered and her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Katihar on 5.10.2009 but before recording the statement of the victim, the case of accused Dilip Kumar Mandal had already been committed to the court of sessions and he faced full-fledged trial in Sessions trial no. 9/2008 and vide judgment dated 30.3.2012 the aforesaid accused Dilip Kumar Mandal was acquitted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, Katihar. 7. The victim, Punam Devi, has been impleaded in this petition as opposite party no.3 and notices were sent to opposite party no.2 as well as opposite party no.3, namely, Baijnath Mandal and Punam Devi respectively and from perusal of the office note, it would appear that notices were personally served upon opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 respectively but they did not choose to appear before this court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly, opposite party no. 3 was recovered and gave her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C and in the aforesaid Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16628 of 2010 (6) dt.17-07-2012 4 statement, she stated that she was taken away by accused Dinesh Kumar Mandal to Gorakhpur where she was confined in a room and the aforesaid Dinesh Kumar Mandal fled away from there. It is further contended by him that the aforesaid opposite party no.3 has not even whispered about involvement of the petitioners in the present crime and, therefore, continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but only an abuse of the process of the court. 9. It is further contended by him that, as a matter of fact, opposite party no.3 was forcibly taken away by opposite party no.2 and others from her matrimonial home and later on, she was hidden by them and opposite party no.2 filed the above stated false case with concocted story. It is further contended by him that before filing of the complaint case bearing Comp

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.