IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40068 of 2008 Priyaranjan @ Pappu, Son of Gopal Shankar, Resident of Village Sonepur, PS Sonepur, District Saran at present 30, Nitibagh, PS Danapur, District Patna --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Omega Sinha, Wife of Neeraj Kumar Verma, Boaring Road, Anand Bhawan, Yadubans Path, PS Budha Colony, District Patna. ------ Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 6 18.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 30.7.2008 for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code in Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 83 of 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Neeraj Kumar Verma is the victim in this case. His wife has lodged the First Information Report in which she has stated that her husband had gone to work with Amarnath Saran on 15.6.2007 after which he did not return. In the First Information Report she has stated that her husband used to work with Vijay Kumar Singh and Mithilesh Singh in the year 2000 with Ravi Bhaiya and Pappu Ji @ Priyaranjan (petitioner) in the year 2005. It has been stated that with each of the persons with whom the victim worked, there was some financial problems, inasmuch as it has been claimed that the wife of the victim alleges that the victim was not paid his entire dues by the parties. Obviously the case 2 was lodged against unknown. During investigation the informant and the brother of the victim has been examined in this case. In the further statement, the only material that has come is that the wife claims that her husband was tense and worried as he had not received the entire payments from Ravi Bhaiya and Pappu Ji @ Priyaranjan. It is also said that some money was to be paid by the victim to Ramchandra Yadav who had come to their residence on 10.6.2007 at about 11 in the afternoon to demand the money. It has also been said that on 16.6.2007 at about 8’O clock, Vijay Kumar Singh and his Sipahi Ramchandra Yadav had come to her house and were asking about her husband but since he had not returned from the factory, she was unable to point out his whereabouts. She repeats the statement that Ravi Bhaiya and petitioners supposedly owe money to Neeraj Kumar. Similarly the brother in his statement recorded before the police has repeated what has been said by the wife. Both these witnesses accept that there was some money to be paid to the victim by a few persons, the amount etc. has not been disclosed. No documentary evidence has been placed to support the said allegation. According to this witness, his brother (Neeraj) went to work on 15.6.2007 at 11.30 AM in the factory of Amarnath Saran, but did not return thereafter. The brother has also supported the fact that Neeraj Kumar was working in 2000 in a Biscuit factory, later he started to work with Ravi Ji and Pappu in the year 2005. 3 They had taken the work of washing linen etc. for the railways. It is said that Neeraj Kumar was tense because of some financial constraints. In this manner all the witnesses have stated that the victim Neeraj was working with different persons. There was money due with each of the persons he was working which supposedly caused him some mental anguish. It may be noted that in the case diary not a single witness, including the witnesses who were working with Niraj Kumar at the Biscuit factory have been able to disclose as to how and at what time Neeraj Kumar left the factory to disappear and never to return. On the basis of the materials gathered in the case diary, charge sheet has been submitted against Madhurendra Kumar Sinha, Upendra and Pappu i.e. the persons who were earlier working with him as contractor in the year 2005 for the railways. The material to connect the petitioner to the said occurrence is the record of the phone calls made on 15.6.2007. It appears that Neeraj spoke to several persons and received quite a few phone calls. It is said that on the fateful day he spoke to Pappu and Ravi for fifteen minutes each. On the basis of this fact the petitioner has been made accused and cognizance has been taken against him. To connect a person to a crime in which it is alleged that he is responsible for kidnapping, there must be some material to indicate that the petitioner was seen by some one with the victim. Merely, because the petitioner along with twelve persons 4 spoke to Neeraj on 15.6.2007 cannot be said that he was responsible for the said occurrence. There is no link to establish the fact that the petitioner had participated in the kidnapping. It is also admitted that apart from Ravi and Pappu, the victim had business connections with three other groups including the person with whom he was working at the time of his disappearance. With each of them there had been some disagreement with respect to partnership and settlement of accounts. However, this fact would not lead to the presumption that the persons with whom he was working were responsible for the said occurrence. This is a case of complete lack of evidence as can be deciphered from the facts aforesaid. I accordingly quash the impugned order and this application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)