IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.975 of 2008 1. TUNTUN SAH, SON OF KEWAL SAH 2. KAMAL NARAYAN SAHU @ KEBAL SAH, SON OF LATE BILAP SAH 3. PARMESHWAR SAHU, SON OF LATE BILAP SAH 4. JAGDISH SAH, SON OF MALHAI SAH 5. JAY NANDAN SAH @ JAY SAH, SON OF JAGDISH SAH 6. HARI NANDAN SAH @ HARI SAH, SON OF JAGDISH SAH 7. BINDESHWAR SAH, SON OF LATE BILAP SAH 8. CHANDESHWAR SAH, SON OF LATE BILAP SAH 9. YUGAL KISHORE @ JUGAL SAH, SON OF BINDESHWAR SAH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SINGAUN, P.S. KISHUNPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL. --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KARI SAH, SON OF GANPAT SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINGAUN, P.S. KISHUNPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 9.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This case arises out of a Complaint Case 408C of 2004. Notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 on two occasions. Notices were validly served but the opposite party no. 2 has refused to appear in this case. It appears from the record of this case that Pradeep Sah had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood. There was land dispute between the parties. Later this aspect of the matter came to light by an application filed by the informant himself which is contained in annexure-5. I find that no case is made out under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, I direct that the Court below should notice opposite party no. 2 and if it is found that annexure-5 had been filed by the complainant then the Court will quash the proceedings considering the fact that it is waste of Court’s time and cause unnecessary harassment to the parties considering that the case 2 was filed under the genuine misconception regarding the fact that Pradeep Sah was kidnapped. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)