IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.890 of 2009 BRAHMDEO PRASAD son of late Amir Lal Yadav, resident of village- Kanhu Pipar, P.S.- Tharthari, District- Nalanda. . . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hilsa, Nalanda. 4. The Officer-in-charge, Hilsa P.S., Nalanda. 5. Arjun Prasad, son of Late Bulkan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Bihari Road, Mahadeo Sthan, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 04.08.2010 Learned counsel for the State is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to produce Pankaj Kumar, son of Arjun Prasad, informant of Hilsa P.S. case no. 181 of 2006 under Sections 363, 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner also prays for quashing the entire criminal prosecution, arising out of Hilsa P.S. case no. 181 of 2006. The informant, namely Arjun Prasad, alleged that his 14 years old son, Pankaj Kumar, is kidnapped by three persons including this petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was settlement of marriage between the informant’s son and the petitioner’s daughter and when unreasonable demand of the informant was not being fulfilled, the instant case has been lodged. Learned counsel by referring Annexure-3 submits that victim Pankaj Kumar, has made statement to the officer-in-charge, Hilsa, Police Station that he left his house without informing his parents and had gone to Delhi 2 on 05.07.2006 and returned on 17.07.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the informant has unnecessarily filed this false case, as such he filed an application before the court to call a report regarding the recovery of the boy. The trial court and the revisional court rejected the application. The revisional court noticed that four witnesses have already been examined in this case and as such there was no provision to call for any report. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the instant case, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken and thereafter four witnesses were examined. Heard the counsel for the parties, the grievance of the petitioner is that the courts did not call for a report from the police, regarding the recovery of the boy from the house of the informant. However, it will be open to the petitioner / defence side to produce all such materials before the court below to show that the boy was recovered from the house of the informant itself. It will be also open to the petitioner to file a complaint, in case, if he satisfied that a false case has been filed. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)