IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56435 of 2007 PRANAY PRASOON, SON OF KRISHNA CHANDRA PATHEJA, RESIDENT OF RAILWAY GODOWN, STATION ROAD MOTIHARI, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. -- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan I, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 2.4.2010 Heard the parties. Cognizance in this case was taken vide order dated 2.11.2007 against the petitioner who was formally an employee of the I.C.I.C.I. Bank at Delhi. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the daughter of the informant ran away with Rinu Shankar. The family members of Rinu Shankar and three others have been made accused in this case. They are Ashwani Kumar, Raju and this petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused on the basis of the statement given by Ashwani Kumari that the recovery of the girl is possible if they were paid some money. These two persons gave the account number of this petitioner at Delhi. Assuming that this petitioner was in connivance with Ashwani Kumar and Raju, charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copy of the charge sheet would indicate that the whole line has been inserted by which the name of this petitioner has also been inserted in the charge sheet. Ultimately the daughter of the informant was recovered and it is submitted that the daughter and the boy with whom she ran away, Rinu Shankar are living together and have off springs as well. The 2 fact that they are living together is apparent from annexure-6 which is a statement of the alleged victim girl recorded on 9.3.2009, in which she has stated that she is living happily with Rinu. On the basis of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police has submitted a final report dated 29.5.2009 exonerating Rinu Shankar as well as all other F.I.R. named accused persons. The difficulty arises from the fact that cognizance has already been taken in this case and the final report has been subsequently submitted on 29.5.2009. The order of cognizance cannot be recalled as per the law therefore, a peculiar situation has arisen in this case where the investigation discloses that the fact that there is no offence under Section 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, whereas cognizance has been taken for the said offences. As stated earlier, the husband and wife are living happily and even according to the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the name of the petitioner has not been disclosed as being a member of the gang who are responsible for kidnapping the girl besides which this case is of boy and girl who ran away and married and does not relate to offences of demand of ransom. In the facts of this case it would be perversity of law to allow the criminal case to proceed against the petitioner. I accordingly quash the order of cognizance dated 2.11.2007, passed in Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 163 of 2007 as far as it concerns the petitioner. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)