1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition NO.1179/2006 Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 12-07-2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. P.R. Prajapat, for Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, PP. Mr. Shanker Rajpurohit, for Mr. J.R. Beniwal, for the respondent. By the instant cr. Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (for short,’ the revisional court’ whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (for short, ‘the trial court’) in FR no.1/2004 was dismissed. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the memo of petition and heard learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for respondent nos.2,3, and 4. Perused the materials available on record. A FIR was lodged by the petitioner on 3.5.2000 at police station, Rajgarh that his son is 2 missing from his house. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and police filed a negative final report, against which petitioner filed a protest petition before the trial court. By a well reasoned and detailed order dated 8.2.2005, the trial court dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the negative final report submitted by the police. The order dated 8.2.2005 came to be challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court. The revisional court also by a well reasoned and detailed order, dismissed the revision petition finding no merit therein. In the instant case, the allegation against the non-petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 that they kidnapped one Rajkumar. Rajkumar himself made a statement that the petitioner and his family members wanted to marry him against his wishes and, therefore, at his own will, he left the house and went for earning his livelihood. I have carefully gone through the statement of Rajkumar. From the statement of Rajkumar, it nowhere appears that he was either kidnapped or forcibly taken away by the respondent nos.2,3 and 4. Both the courts below concurrently found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent nos.2,3, and 4 and accepted 3 the negative final report submitted by the police and dismissed the protest petition. In my view, there is absolute no material, prima facie to proceed against respondent nos.2,3 and 4. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is therefore dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. Praveen