Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7975 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Pankaj Kumarj son of Sri Prem Kumar Kuswaha, resident of Village-Dharhara, P.O. and P.S.-Dharhara, District-Monger (Bihar). 2. Prem Kumar son of late Mahabir Prasad, resident of Village- Dharhara, P.O. and P.S.-Dharhara, District-Monger (Bihar). Both are present residents of Kamalnath Vihar (Labour Colony) House No. 26/10, Saharanpur (U.P.), P.S. Kutubser, District- Saharanpur (U.P.). .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dr. Laliteshwar Sinha son of late Ram Shobhit Sinha, resident of L.S. College Road, Near Abkari Godown. Ke State, P.S.-Kaji Mohmandpur, District-Muzaffarpur (Bihar). .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Dharmandra Kumar Paswan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 7 15-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 21.08.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 1038 of 2008, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . The sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2006 was lodged on the basis of the written report of Laliteshwar Sinha, opposite party no. 2 and on investigation the police submitted the final form. Thereafter, the protest petition filed on behalf of opposite party Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7975 of 2009 (7) dt.15-05-2012 2/2 no. 2 was treated as complaint case and on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned order has been passed, which is illegal. It is also submitted that in fact the petitioners are the husband and father-in-law of the victim, Savita Sinha @ Sarita, the daughter of the informant/complainant/opposite party no. 2 and has been falsely implicated in this case. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statements of the witnesses, arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under Section 363/34 is made out against the accused- petitioners. I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their defence, raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 363

Statute Text:
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.