CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12875 OF 2000 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.JOGI YADAV son of late Sukhdeo Yadav 2.Shivan Yadav son of late Sukhdeo Yadav 3.Ramji Yadav son of late Mahabir Yadav 4.Hazari Yadav son of late Janku Yadav 5.Upendra Yadav son of Hazari Yadav 6.Shyam Sunder Yadav son of late Anup Lal Yadav 7.Virendra Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Yadav son of Shyam Sunder Yadav 8.Umesh Yadav son of Munga Lal Yadav 9.Anant Lal Yadav son of late Bokain Yadav All residents of village-Laxmipu, P.S.-Phulkaha (Narpatganj), Dist.-Araria ….….. …….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Subala Devi wife of Hari Narayan Yadav, resident of village-Laxmipur, P.S.-Phulkaha (Narpatganj) Dist.-Araria …… ……Opp.Parties ------- For the petitioners: Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr.Advocate Mr.Ajay. For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Girish Prasad Gupta For the State: Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. Nine petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), have prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.8.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria. in Narpatganj (Fulkaha) P.S. Case No.184 of 1998/G.R. No.1585 of 1998. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 10.11.1997 opposite party no.2 filed a compliant which was numbered as 2 Complaint Case No.1636C of 1997. On 23.7.1998 the complaint petition was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter a first information report vide Narpatganj (Fulkahaa) P.S. Case No.184 of 1998 was registered on 16.9.1998. After registering the case, the police investigated the same. It appears that during investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded by the police and the victim had categorically denied the allegation. On the contrary it was stated that complainant/informant had herself sent the victim to Nepal. Thereafter, the police submitted final form as allegation was found untrue. In the case final form was submitted on 31.10.1998. After submission of the final form, statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after perusing the materials on record as well as statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. differing with the police report took cognizance of the offence under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr.Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the case was falsely instituted by opposite party no.2. He submits that during investigation it was found that the complainant had illicit relation with the victim who was none else but servant of the informant. It was further submitted 3 that during investigation the truth has come and, thereafter the victim’s statement was recorded by the police. After recording the statement of the victim, namely, Laxmi Yadav, a petition was filed on 28.8.1998 with a prayer to record his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. On 21.9.1998 the victim appeared in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate with a view to make statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. However, since the presiding officer was absent on that date his statement could not be recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to annexure-2 to the petition which is order-sheet of the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. which has been brought on record and has been annexed as annexure-3 to the petition. He has also referred to annexure-4 which is a petition filed on behalf of the victim. It was further submitted that after statement of the victim was recorded by the police the victim was kidnapped by the informant/complainant of the present case and, as such, the brother of the victim filed a complaint which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1476C of 1998 and the same was also referred to the police for its registration and thereafter first information report vide Narpatganj (Falkaha) P.S. Case No.185 of 1998 was registered on 16.9.1998 for the offences under sections 364 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant/complainant of the present case. He has also placed the final report submitted in the present case which has been brought as annexure 7 to the petition. It was submitted that the investigating officer has categorically stated in the final report that 4 the complainant was having illicit relation with the victim and the case was falsely lodged. On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 5. Mr.Girish Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted by him that the petitioners are influential and, as such, the police in collusion with the accused persons had submitted an incorrect and false report before the court. It was submitted that the investigation was not conducted in right perspective rather it was done to supress the fact and finally the victim was released from the clutch of the accused persons. His statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded which categorically suggests commission of offence under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 6. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record particularly the impugned order. From the impugned order, this court is satisfied that while taking cognizance the learned Magistrate has committed no error. The learned Magistrate has categorically referred to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. At the time of cognizance only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. On the basis of the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., I do not think that the 5 Patna High Court The 23rd August, 2010. Md.S./NAFR learned Magistrate has committed any error while passing the order of cognizance. Moreover, at the stage of hearing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not required to examine all the annexures filed along with the petition save and except in special circumstance. This court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in their favour. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the case and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay granted on 3.10.2001 stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)