Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3943 of 2012 (2) dt.10-05-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3943 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Manish Chandra @ Mahesh Chandra S/O Nand Lal Singh 2. Nand Lal Singh S/O Late Jang Bahadur Singh 3. Dhanish Chandra @ Dhanish Chandra Singh S/O Nand Lal Singh 4. Renu Kumari @ Smt. Renu Devi W/O Late Satish Chandra 5. Phool Kumari Devi W/O Nand Lal Singh All Resident Of Village- Jokta, P.S.- Chandi, District- Bhojpur (Bihar) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jay Nandan Rai S/O Late Right Nandan Rai Resident Of Village- Haldi Chapra, Old Tola, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna (Bihar). .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 10-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 by which and whereunder he took cognizance of the offences under [STATUTE] differing with the reasoning given by the police officials. It would appear from perusal of the record that above Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3943 of 2012 (2) dt.10-05-2012 stated Chandi P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 under [STATUTE] was registered against the petitioners and after investigation, police submitted final form showing insufficient evidence but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passing a detailed order differed with the reasoning of the police and passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the above stated offences. Although, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince me that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order without considering this fact that police could not find any material to put the petitioners on trial but I am not, at all, convinced with the aforesaid submission because the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has given sufficient reasons for differing with the findings of the police. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, the petitioners may raise their pleas before the learned trial court at appropriate stage and if they do so, the learned trial court shall pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.