Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12716 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ram Jeet Singh @ Ram Jeet Mahto, Son of Late Jagdhari Mahto. 2. Dhanraj Singh @ Dhanraj Mahto, Son of Ramgrihi Mahto. 3. Hridaya Singh, Son of Late Keshwar Singh. 4. Ram Kumar Singh @ Kumar Mahto, Son of Late Kapil Muni Mahto. 5. Ramashish Singh @ Ramashish Mahto, Son of Late Kapil Muni Mahto. 6. Satendra Singh @ Satendra Mahto, Son of Bishavnath Mahto. 7. Lallan Singh @ Lalan Mahto, Son of Late Gayani Mahto. 8. Ram Dayal Choudhary, Son of Sarju Choudhary. All resident of Village – Babuganj English, P.S. – Sikraul, District – Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Yamuna Choudhary, Son of Somaru Choudhary. Resident of Village – Babuganj English (Noniya Tola) P.S. – Sikraul, District – Buxar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar 1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 28-06-2012 Heard Sri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyanand Shukla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 25.11.2008 and 16.01.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate, Buxar respectively. By order dated 25.11.2008, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had transferred the case to Judicial Magistrate for conducting enquiry, and by order dated 16.01.2010, learned Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, after Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12716 of 2010 (4) dt.28-06-2012 2 / 4 2 conducting enquiry, has passed order of cognizance under [STATUTE] and summoned the accused persons. Sri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order submits, that the opposite party no. 2 maliciously had given false fard-beyan before the Police and on that fard-beyan F.I.R. vide Sikraul P.S. Case No. 40 of 2007 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against the petitioners. The Police, after thoroughly investigating the case found the allegation as false and submitted final report. While submitting final report, Police also recommended for prosecuting the informant, who is opposite party no. 2, for the offence under [STATUTE] . Before that, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2, which was treated as complaint petition, and thereafter, impugned order was passed. He submits that prior to filing of this case, at least, three cases were registered against opposite party no. 2 and his family members by the petitioners’ side. There is dispute pertaining to some land and due to that reason cases were lodged by the petitioners against the informant and his family members, and in retaliation, the opposite party no. 2 had got F.I.R. registered and during investigation, the Police found that the opposite party Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12716 of 2010 (4) dt.28-06-2012 3 / 4 3 no. 2 had made false statement with a view to implicate the petitioners and final report was submitted. He submits that the present proceeding against the petitioners is liable to be quashed on the ground of malicious prosecution. In this case, by order dated 10.12.2010, a Bench of this Court had summoned Case Diary of Sikraul P.S. Case No. 40 of 2007, which has been received. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on perusal of the Case Diary informs the Court that during investigation number of witnesses were examined, who had corroborated the allegation. He further submits that despite the fact that in the Case Diary there were materials against the petitioners, the Police submitted final report. This statement was contradicted by Sri Bharat Lal. He has specifically referred certain paragraphs of the Case Diary and submitted that independent witnesses, whose statement was recorded, in paragraph nos. 33 & 34 of the Case Diary, makes it clear that even though witnesses namely, Suraj Sharma and Madan Kumar Singh had corroborated about the occurrence they had stated that due to land dispute the petitioners were made accused. He submits that other witnesses, who had corroborated the case, are relatives of the complainant /opposite party no. 2. Be that as it may, fact remains that the learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12716 of 2010 (4) dt.28-06-2012 4 / 4 4 Magistrate had conducted an enquiry and during enquiry at least four witnesses were examined, who supported the case of the complainant. Moreover, in the Case Diary also there are material to substantiate that on the alleged date occurrence had taken place in the house of the opposite party no. 2. Even the independent witnesses have also supported the same. Besides this, family members had made statement showing involvement of the petitioners. After going through the impugned order and materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of cognizance. At this stage, while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of cognizance, it would not be advisable for this Court to conduct an enquiry to come to the conclusion as to whether the case was maliciously filed or not. All those points can be considered at appropriate stage by the court below. At least, this is not the stage. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.