IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10481 of 2008 1. Lalpari Devi W/o Ram Bahadur Sah 2. Debi lal Sah son of Late Laxan Sah Both r/o vill. Mirzapur, P.S. Patahi, Dist. East Champaran at Motihari. ---Petitioners. Versus The state of Bihar --- Opp.Parties.. ----------- 03 13.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sikrahana at Motihari in Patahi P.S. Case no. 27 of 2007. By the said order learned Magistrate on a consideration of the materials on record along with the police report has found that a prima facie case punishable under Sections 366A and 120B of the Penal Code exists. Accordingly summonses have been directed to be issued. Background facts leading to the present application in a nut shell may be indicated. Father of Rinki Kumari lodged an F.I.R. on 09.05.2006, alleging therein that his minor daughter was enticed away and kidnapped by her tutor, namely, Mukesh Baitha. The informant also lodged a complaint on 11.05.2006, in the Court which was sent to the police for necessary action. On 17.3.2007, a protest petition (annexure-3) was filed. On 13.07.2007, the victim girl, who, has been assessed between 17/18 years of age, appeared before the police and made statement in which she is said to have stated that she on her own volition married with aforesaid Mukesh 2 Baitha. The Statement has been placed on record as Annexure-4. On 16.07.2007, the victim girl was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. In her such statement she has alleged specific role(s) to the petitioners in the commission of the offence. The statement is on record as Annexure-5. It is seen from the records that charge sheet in the present case was submitted on 31.07.2007 only against accused Mukesh Baitha. Petitioners herein were not sent up for trial as there was no sufficient material found against them. It is thus the contention of the petitioners that the present prosecution is malafide and malicious. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the complaint lodged on 11.05.2006, as also the protest petition lodged on 17.03.2007, as also the alleged statement of the girl taken on 13.07.2007, any iota of evidence and/or allegation has come against the petitioners herein. It is the contention of the petitioners that because of the pendency of a criminal case lodged on 12.05.2006, by the brother of petitioner no.2 against a set of accuseds, including the informant of the present case, under Section 302 of the Penal Code the victim girl has been tutored to name the present petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only to be satisfied from the materials on record including the police case diary as to whether there is sufficient evidence available on record to proceed against the accused 3 persons. On a perusal of the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. (Annexure-5), this Court finds that the said statement of the victim girl is replete with allegations incriminating the petitioners. Considering the scope of jurisdiction invoked by the Court and the materials available on record, this Court is satisfied that no illegality as such has been committed by the learned Court below in taking cognizance. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)