IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9182 of 2004 1. SANJIV KUMAR SINGH, S/o Daroga Singh, 2. Daroga Singh, S/o Late Thakur Pratap Singh, All resident of Village- Tandwa, Police Station- Dehri On Sone, District- Rohtas, At present Jakhanpur, Gardanibagh, Police Station Gardanibagh, District- Patna. 3. Virendra Kumar Singh @ Wakil Sahab, s/o Late Jay Singh, Resident of Village- Mohammadpur, Rani Sarai, Police Station- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Rukma Devi, W/o Umesh Singh, resident of Village- Mokrampur, P.S. Nalanda, District- Nalanda, at present village Pachasa, P.S. Rahui, District- Nalanda. . . . . . Opposite parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha no.1, Advocate. For the State : Ali Muzaffar, A.P.P. ----------- 11/ 08.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case no. 18 C of 2000 by which learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 363, 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused persons used to engage her husband Umesh Singh for driving truck bearing registration no. BR 1G 3213. The accused persons came to her house on 07.11.1999 and as usual took her husband for the purpose of driving the truck. However, her husband did not return and she even not received his salary too. On 10.01.2000 the complainant went to the house of petitioner no.1 where all the three accused persons were present. On enquiry, the accused stated that unless and until a sum of Rs. One lakh is paid, her husband would not be reproduced. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution case is out and - 2 - out a malicious prosecution. He submits that petitioner no.2, who was an employee of Cooperative Department, is the father of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.3 is father-in-law of petitioner no.1 and lives separately in Bakhtiyarpur. Learned counsel submits that the falsity of the prosecution case would appear from the fact that on one of the dates of alleged occurrence i.e. 10.01.2000 petitioner no.1 was in jail in Dihri P.S. case no. 394 of 1999 under Section 364 A of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the First Information Report has been annexed as Annexure 5. Learned counsel submits that in fact the truck along with the complainant’s husband got missing for which petitioner no.1 lodged a Sanha with police. The petitioners suspect hat some miscreants in process of looting the truck may have abducted with the complainant’s husband. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that petitioner no.3 is living separately and has no concern with the family of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. It further appears that at least part of the allegations levelled by the complainant is false. However, this Court is not inclined to set aside criminal proceeding against petitioner nos. 1 and 2. In the circumstances, impugned order taking cognizance against petitioner no.3 is only set aside. However, the proceeding against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 will continue. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)