IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55275 of 2007 LALDEO SINGH, son of Late Sateynarayan Singh, resident of village – Sikandarpur, P.S. – Sangrampur, Distt. – East Champaran (Bihar). ---------- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pramod Pandey, son of Ramashray Pandey, resident of village – Sikandarpur, P.S. – Sangrampur, Distt. – East Champaran. ----------- Opp. Party. ----------- 2 31.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, District East Champaran, in Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 119/2005, for the offences under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal code. The case instituted against the unknown persons but it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the victim is a boy aged about 12 years voluntarily returned to his house after some days of his abstination. The boy has given his statement before police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he did not disclose the name of the petitioner. But some time thereafter roughly after two and half months, petitioner’s 2 name has been disclosed in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a prior enmity between both the families. Disclosure of the name of the petitioner in his statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be sufficient for an order of taking cognizance. Taking into consideration on this aspect of the matter, I find that there is no reason to quash the impugned order. However, petitioner is at liberty to agitate such points at the time of hearing on the point of charge before the trial court, who shall consider the materials available in accordance with law without being prejudice of instant refusal to quash the order taking cognizance by this Court. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)