IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40674 of 2007 DILIP KUMAR SON OF JAMUNA SAO RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SARIAGANJ DHOBIYAGALI, P.S.TOWN,DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & INDRA NARAIN SAH ----- 3/ 19.03.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer to adjourn the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 are present. This application is of the year 2007 and in a matter like this, time cannot be granted at this stage. Heard learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. I perused the impugned orders and the records of the case. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.07.2007 passed in Cr.Revision No. 210 of 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Muzaffarpur whereby he has quashed the order dated 03.11.2006 passed by Sri S.K.Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 246 of 2006 by which the learned Magistrate after finding a case prima facie under Sections 323 and 504/34 of 2 the Indian Penal Code ordered for issuance of summon to the petitioner and others to appear in court to face the trial. A complaint petition was filed by the petitioner against opposite party no.2 and others for offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code in which it was alleged that the petitioner’s daughter Tripati aged 3 years living with complainant’s father and mother at Siliguri was admitted at Rabindra Shishu Sadan at Siliguri on 16.01.2006. She used to go to school with her grand mother. The allegation was that opposite party no.2 and other co-accused snatched away his daughter Tripati and brought her in Bihar. The complainant came to the house of the accused persons on 2.2.2006 but they refused to hand over the daughter. Other allegation was that the accused persons told the complainant that accused Deepa Kumari and wife of the complainant will kill her daughter and thereafter the complainant’s wife will marry with another person. In the said complaint case, inquiry under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was 3 made in which three witnesses were examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the learned Magistrate found the case prima facie to be true under Sections 341,323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite party no.2 of this application and others. Against the said order, revision was preferred by opposite party no.2 and the revisional court after detailed discussions came to the finding that the order of the learned Magistrate suffered from illegality. So the revision was allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 03.11.2006 was set aside. Hence this case. After going through the records and the impugned orders, it appears that the revisional court has considered the entire materials on record and has given detailed reasonings to arrive at the conclusion. So the impugned order is correct and requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)