IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28027 of 2009 1.Dineshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Guru Dutt Singh 2. Rakesh Ranjan Kumar @ Manoj Kumar, S/o Dineshwar Prasad Singh Both residents of village-Dayalpur Damoli, P.S. Raja Pakar, O.P. Barati, District -Vaishali Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3 08-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. Petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing the order dated 21.04.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Raj Pakar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, having receipt of charge sheet under Sections-364, 365, 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, he took cognizance for the above said offences. It would appear from the record that the informant, Vishwanath Singh filed Complaint Case No. 1088 of 2007 on 08.05.2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur who subsequently, sent the aforesaid complaint petition for institution of FIR and, accordingly, Barati O.P. (Raja Pakar) P.S. Case No. 57 of 2007 under Sections-364, 365, 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners and some other accused persons. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet for the offences under Sections- 2 364, 365, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and having receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed the impugned order against which, this quashing petition has been preferred. It is the case of the informant that on 03.05.2007 his younger brother, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh had gone to play cricket but he did not return till evening and subsequently, he went in search of his brother and saw the petitioners and other accused standing near a Maruti van. It is further prosecution case that the aforesaid persons took away the brother of the informant. In course of investigation, the victim appeared and his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.12.2008 and in the statement, he supported the prosecution story and disclosed that he was kidnapped by petitioners and other accused and subsequently, his marriage was forcibly solemnized with a girl who had only one eye. The aforesaid victim further stated that anyhow he eluded from the clutches of petitioners and other accused and went to Kolkata where he worked in a bus as Khalasi and after some days, he returned to his home and gave his statement. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as a matter of fact, the marriage of victim was solemnized with one Savita Devi who went to 3 her in-laws’ house where she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for illegal demand of dowry. It is also stated that wife of the victim namely, Savita Devi filed criminal case against the victim and his other family members before institution of the present case and i.e. the reason of filing of the above-said case. It is also contended by him that as per statement of the informant, the alleged occurrence took place in the evening of 03.05.2007 whereas the Victim has stated that he had gone to play cricket in the morning. So, the aforesaid contradiction cuts the root of the case and the present case is nothing but only a weapon of persecution and must be quashed with a view to prevent the abuse of process of the law. On the otherhand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order submitting that almost all the pleas which have been raised here on behalf of the petitioners, are liable to be considered at the time of trial. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. The statement of victim has been recorded under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has supported the prosecution case and furthermore, he has specifically stated that his marriage was forcibly solemnized with the daughter of one, Ramchandra Rai on the alleged date of occurrence. So, the alleged marriage is itself in challenge and the allegation needs deeper investigation which is possible in 4 trial only. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, in my view, this quashing petition is devoid of merit and it must be dismissed on admission stage itself. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, it is made clear that if petitioners raise the above-said pleas before trial court at the time of framing of charge, the learned trial court shall consider the above-said pleas and shall pass order on the basis of materials available before him without being prejudiced by this order. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)