IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.313 of 2007 1. SHASHI PRASAD GUPTA,son of late Foujdar Prasad Gupta. 2. Pankaj Kumar @ Paplu, son of Shashi Prasad Gupta. Both resident of Mohalla Sahid Tola,Naugachia,P.S.-Naugachia,District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jawahar Lal Bhagat, son of late Deep Narayan Bhagat, resident of Dixan Road, East of Bus Stand, P.S.- Kotwali,District-Bhagalpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the State(O.P.1): Mr.Jhkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For Opp.Party No.2 : M/s. N.K.Agrawal(Sr.Advocate) & Dr. Manoj Kumar,Advocate ---------------- 07/ 27-03-2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.11.2006, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, has taken cognizance under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Kotwali(Mundichak)P.S.Case No.377/2002. One sonu, son of the informant, was found missing. A Sanha to that effect was lodged with the concerned police station. Later, finding no trace a separate FIR was also lodged making a case of kidnapping but in course of investigation it appeared that petitioner no.2 took the boy with him but returned alone, which this petitioner himself disclosed on enquiry further that he left Sonu at Gurudwara Road, Bhagalpur. Against petitioner no.1, there is only material that he 2 did not report whereabout of Sonu Kumar. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that evidence is lacking in the case to involve any of the petitioners, that is opposed on behalf of the learned counsel for the informant pointing out the case of last seen but for petitioner no.1 he also failed to point out any material involving him. If there can be any chance of appearance of any material in court of trial, that can be taken into consideration by the trial court. Thus, I find that the material collected by the Investigating Officer shows prima facie involvement of petitioner no.2 but not sufficient to involve petitioner no.1. So, the order taking cognizance against petitioner no.1, Shashi Prasad Gupta is hereby quashed, while left to maintain for petitioner no.2 Pankaj Kumar @ Paplu. Accordingly, this application is allowed in respect of petitioner no.1 and dismissed against petitioner no.2. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )