IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.11602 OF 2007 BABU PRASAD JHA @ MUNNIJI, SON OF LATE KAMESHWAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST HARIPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF PARMESHWAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE IBRAHIMPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 3. RATAN KUMAR JHA, SON OF BABU PRASAD JHA @ MUNNIJI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST HARIPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 7 23/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 20.01.2007 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120, 363, 367 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Bahera Police Station Case No. 257 of 2004. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the son of Opposite Party No. 2 was taken away by the accused persons and kept in the house of Opposite Party No. 3. After that she has not been able to meet her son nor does she receive the wages from him. The case diary indicates that the family members of the complainant/informant have stated that they had learnt from the complainant/informant that 2 her son has been taken for the purpose of working with Opposite Party No. 3. The police on investigation found that due to land dispute and for political reasons, this case has been filed and infact the husband of the complainant/informant had also run away from the village. A protest petition had also been filed on behalf of the complainant/informant. The Court below dismissed the protest petition and had proceeded on the basis of the First Information Report and the materials that has come in the case diary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not a single eye-witness to the fact that the son of the complainant/informant was handed over to the petitioner except the complainant/informant herself and the materials in the case diary indicates that a number of villagers have stated that the case has been instituted for malafide reasons. The Court below has taken cognizance on the basis of the materials in the case diary i.e. the statement of the complainant/informant and the hearsay statement of the family members of the complainant/informant. I see no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is 3 dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all these issues at the time of framing of the charges if he thinks it proper and the Court below will verify the evidence that has come in the case diary. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)