IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2280 of 2008 ============================================= 1. Guddu Singh 2. Bablu Singh 3. Banti Singh 4. Sonu Singh 5. Amit Kumar Singh All resident of Village-Barauli, P.S. Piro, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Vill. Barauli, P.S. Pirao, Dist. Bhojpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheojee Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan For the S t a t e : Mr. Ansarul Haque, A.P.P. ============================================= 9 14-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application is filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2006 whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M., Arrah has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 902(c) of 2003. Complainant’s case in short is that complainant’s son was taken to Gurgaon by one Manoj Kumar Singh in name of providing him some job. Manoj Singh was coming regularly his house but complainant’s son never turned up. She was asking accused persons about whereabouts of her son but nothing was disclosed. She was believing that under a conspiracy her son either was kidnapped or killed due to previous enmity. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners from its very face doubts the allegation that if there was enmity in between the accused persons and the complainant she could never allow her son to accompany accused persons. On the other point, it is submitted that matter was sent for registering F.I.R. and it was thoroughly investigated and final form submitted exonerating petitioners from liability of kidnapping. There is nothing to doubt that statement recorded in course of investigation may not be taken to believe or disbelieve the cognizance treating this complaint- cum-protest as an independent case. What is relevant which is admitted to the parties is that victim boy came back first to Bokaro then to his village. He was examined by the I.O. in course of investigation and then only final form was submitted. Submission is that kidnapping was disbelieved basing statement made by the victim boy so he should be examined in course of enquiry because of the reason that he was the single witness to state kidnapping if really was committed. Neither the complainant nor her witnesses are eye witness of kidnapping. Legal position is clear that a single witness examined in course of enquiry is sufficient to believe prima facie constituting any offence but in the instant case in discussed circumstance, non- examination of the victim boy more specific when there was enmity in between both the families from earlier was allowed for kidnapping is fatal so, the allegation appears improbable and disbelieved hereby. Accordingly, the quashing application is allowed and the order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M. is hereby quashed. Shailendra Bhushan Prasad/- A.F.R./ (Mandhata Singh, J.)