IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35509 of 2007 1. MD.SAHEEM 2. MD MUSIM 3. MD HASIM 4. MD ISLAM 5. MD TINKU 6. MD SAGEER VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR & 2. MD ALIM ----------- 4. 13.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners pray for quashing order dated 6.10.2005, by which cognizance for offence under sections 342,366,386,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 1975/04 (Kahalgaon Police Station case no.119/03), passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Bhagalpur. Opp party no.2 filed a written report dated 28.3.2003 to the Officer-in-charge, NTPC (Kahalgaon) Police Station alleging therein that on 18.3.2003 accused petitioners abducted his son, namely, Md. Chhotu from his shop and solemnized marriage with daughter of petitioner no.1(Bibi Ishrat). In the written report, he has also alleged that earlier to the occurrence, Rs. 3000/- was also missing from his shop. The aforesaid complaint was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur on 21.8.2003 leading to registration of Kahalgaon Police Station case no. 119 of 2003 under aforementioned sections. It appears subsequently, daughter of petitioner no.1, namely, Bibi Ishrat @ Bibi Shahjahan lodged Kahalgaon Police Station case no. 163/2003 alleging offences under sections 498A I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against son of opposite party no.2, his son and others. Petitioners submit that no offence under sections - 2 - 342,366,386,379 & 366 I.P.C. is made out against them as they did not abduct son of opp party no.2 for purpose of marriage, rather it was a case of love turned marriage. Moreover, in this case police after investigation, filed final report on 30.6.2003 observing the case to be mistake of fact against accused persons. However, it proceeded on the basis of protest petition filed by opposite party number 2 on 21.8.2003. Counsel for opp party no.2 states that accused persons abducted his minor son and get him forcibly married to daughter of petitioner no.1. On consideration of materials on record I find that the prosecution has not made out a case under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, in the F.I.R. opp party no.2 did not allege that accused persons snatched Rs.3000/-. In that view of the matter, I set aside order taking cognizance so far it relates to sections 386 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The quashing petition is partially allowed to the extent indicated above. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)