IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29404 of 2005 1. SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ SANJEET KUMAR Son of Late Kartik Singh 2. Niranjan Singh, Son of Late Sukhsagar Singh 3. Suman Kumar Singh, Son of Shanker Prasad Singh, 4. Ram Nath Singh, Son of Late Shyam Kishore Singh, 5. Devendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bacha Singh, 6. Krishna Kumar Singh, Son of Janardan Singh All resident of Village- Mahathi, Police Station Bibhutipur, District Samastipur (Accused). . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gopal Prasad Singh, Son of Late Geeta Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Mahathi, Police Station Bibhutipur, District Samastipur (Complainant). . . . . Opp. Parties. ----------- 11/ 11.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In spite of notice, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.05.2005, whereby cognizance has been taken of the offence under Sections 341, 384 and 504 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel assailed the impugned prosecution on the ground that the same is malicious. The opposite party filed a complaint case stating that the accused persons intercepted him and his family members on the way and snatched his grand son and demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- Learned counsel submits that in fact the instant prosecution has been launched to wreak vengeance against these petitioners, as they demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from him, which was provided as loan to opposite party no.2, on the eve of marriage of his daughter. Learned counsel submits that Mithilesh Singh, full brother of petitioner no.4, had earlier filed a complaint case bearing complaint - 2 - case no. 271 of 2002 dated 27.04.2002 against opposite party no.2, Gopal Prasad Singh, under Sections 323, 342, 384, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate on enquiry found that the allegation of kidnapping of grand-son of opposite party no.2, is absolutely false, as such he did not take cognizance under Sections 364 and 364 A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the major portion of the allegation has thus, been found false by the Magistrate. Counsel for the State submits that the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance under Sections 341, 384 and 504 of the I.P.C. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is some dispute regarding taking of loan between the parties. It further appears that the allegation of kidnapping of grand-son of opposite party no.2 was also found to be false, as the latter died a natural death on account of ailment. In this view of the matter, I find that no case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioners and as such order taking cognizance under the aforesaid section is quashed. However, the proceeding will continue against the petitioners under Sections 504 and 341 of the I.P.C. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)