IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16849 of 2007 DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ GUDDU SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8. 19.03.2010 This application is directed against the order dated 1st February, 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif passed in Complaint Case no.50 (c) of 2002 whereby a petition filed by the petitioner praying for discharging him has been rejected and he has been ordered to be charged for the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code to stand trial for the same. As to the antecedent of the case, it was submitted that earlier on the complaint of the complainant (O.P.No.2), a Police case was instituted for the offence under section 365 IPC, but the Police submitted final form against the petitioner. The complainant/informant had filed a protest petition during investigation. The protest was treated as a complaint and an enquiry was done by the Magistrate. In course of enquiry, three witnesses were examined. On perusal of the statement of witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case and took cognizance of offence under section 365 IPC. The case was under trial and witnesses were examined before charge. To-day in course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner showed the certified copy of statement of three witnesses, namely, Ram Naresh Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Ramashray Singh. Ram Naresh Singh who is complainant himself, who stated that on coming to his house he learnt that the petitioner had kidnapped 2 his wife. The two witnesses, namely, Bhagwan Singh and Ramashray Singh stated that they had seen the petitioner going taking away Meena Kumari on a tracker. On these evidences, the learned trial court found that it was a case for framing of charge under section 365 IPC and petitioner’s prayer for discharging him has been refused. On consideration of the materials, I find that there was sufficient material for framing of charge. The learned trial court has rightly ordered for framing of charge. There is no need for any interference with the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad,J )