IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54581 of 2007 RANJIT KUMAR @ GAUTAM, Son of Sri Damodar Prasad @ Rameshwar Prasad, resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S. Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad......................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Shoeb Khan, Son of Late Nashir Haidar Khan, resident of Village- Saren, P.S. Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. ................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prithivi Raj Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. ---------- O R D E R The petitioner one of the First Information Report named accused of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2007 has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution case including the order dated 24.9.2007 passed therein by Sri Raj Kishore Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 363, 366A, 372, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and a few others. The aforesaid case was initially registered under Sections 363, 366A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons named in the First Information Report including the petitioner, on the basis of a written report submitted by one Md. Shoaib Khan who alleged that his daughter Kahkasha Khanam @ Chandani aged about 12-13 years at about 6 A.M. on 11.4.2007 having informed her mother went to the Government Girls Middle School, Tehta, to bring her pass marksheet but had not returned till the evening whereupon he searched for her in Tehta and being unable to locate her, submitted a Sanha before the Tehta O.P. on 13.4.2007. It is further alleged that even as - 2 - the search for the missing daughter continued he learnt that on 7.4.2007 a phone call had been received in the S.T.D. booth run by Ahsan at Tehta with a request to talk to Chandani and when Ahsan had enquired about the identity of the caller and the place wherefrom he was calling the reply was that it was Gautam who was calling from Jehanabad. It was also alleged that he further learnt that his daughter Kahkasha @ Chandani kept constant company of Chandani Kumari, the daughter of Awadhesh Mistri of Tehta Bazaar and that she was a regular visitor to the telephone booth of Ahsan wherefrom she used to make regular telephone calls. He further learnt that his daughter regularly talked over Telephone with one Ranjit Kumar @ Gautam, the son of Damodar Prasad of village- Saidpur, the permanent village of Chandani Kumari and her father and that Chandani and Gautam often sat together and chatted amongst themselves. The informant also alleged that the said Ranjit Kumar in December, 2005 had seduced a girl of Tehta who was eventually recovered from the Railway Platform at Gaya. The informant further disclosed that the said Ranjit Kumar was in the habit of enticing school going girls on the road with his sweet talk and once they fell in his net he would seduce them. On the aforesaid premise, the informant apprehended that his minor daughter had been enticed and seduced by the said Ranjit Kumar in connivance with Chandani Kumari with the prime intention of forcing her into illicit intercourse with others or compelled to marry. It was also given out that the said Ranjit Kumar was absconder from the date of the occurrence. It appears that the kidnapped Chandani Kumari was - 3 - eventually recovered by the police on 21.5.2007 with two other persons and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was duly recorded on the same date by Sri Brajesh Kumar Malviya , Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad. In the said statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. Kahkasha @ Chandani Kumari described how she had been taken by Krishna and Ranjit to Gaya and lodged in a Hotel where she was raped repeatedly by two persons, a Mandal and a Paswan, claiming themselves to be police men, and of her being deserted by them at Bodh Gaya and falling in the company of one Upendra Singh who claimed to be a constable of Bihar S.A.P. who took her to Kolkatta to the house of his brother Jitendra and then shifted her to a hotel where rape was committed on her, brought back to Sherghatti where she was subjected to continuous rape and after two weeks she was removed to Masrak where she was again raped. After some time she was taken back to Sherghatti and kept in a rented house wherefrom she was recovered. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence in the entire case diary to show the complicity of the petitioner save and except alleged telephonic talks with Kahkasha and even in her statement under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. she does not disclose the name of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the other persons who have been arrested in connection with the crime in their respective confessional statement have also not named the petitioner. On this premise it was submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had been implicated as a mistake of fact only because his name was Ranjit and that one Ranjit Kumar @ Rajesh was the actual - 4 - culprit who was Incharge in the incident, which would be apparent from the confessional statement of co-accused Krishna Kumar Gupta. It was also submitted that it would be apparent from the charge sheet submitted by the police that amongst the persons who had been named in column 11 thereof was one Ranjeet Kumar @ Rajesh and not the petitioner herein. The impugned order disclosed that the present petitioner is one of the accused who had been charge sheeted and there was sufficient materials against the petitioner to make out a prime facie case for proceeding against him. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that disputed question of facts are required to be investigated which can not be done at this stage since a proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P. C. does not permit looking into the disputed facts. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not at the present inclined to quash the impugned order and allow the application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise these questions at the time of framing of charges. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Dt.: the 17th July, 2009 U.K./A.F.R.