IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17334 of 2005 RABINDRA SINGH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 13 23.4.2010 The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Biharsharif in Rahui P.S. Case No.225 of 2001 whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under section 364/34 of the Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioners. On 15.10.2001 one Arjun Singh lodged an information with Rahui P.S. stating therein that on 29.7.2001 the accused Ajit Singh, Pintu Singh, Praveen Singh and Kedar Singh of village Tira, P.S. Rahui came to his house and impressed upon him that they can get suitable job for his son. On persuasion of the aforesaid accused, the informant heeded to their advise and allowed his son to go with him. The informant also gave a sum of Rs.6,000/- to his son for his necessary expenses. It is further alleged that after 2-4 days, the informant went to village Tira to enquire from the aforesaid persons regarding whereabouts of his son. He was informed that his son has been engaged in a private job. On 29.9.2001, one Kedar Singh came to his house and told him that his son was demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh for getting government job. However, despite repeated request, Kedar Singh did not reveal the whereabouts of his son to the informant. Thus, the informant suspects that the accused persons had kidnapped his son and might have killed him. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father and son and they are not named in the F.I.R. The police after investigation submitted final form exonerating all the accused persons of their involvement in the crime. The petitioner no.1 is in fact Samdhi of the informant and petitioner no.2 is the son-in-law of the informant. He further submits that the petitioners could have no reason to kidnap the son of the informant. Both the petitioners are in the service of Army and it would appear from the case diary that they were not present at the spot on the alleged date of occurrence. He further submits that it would appear from the case diary that the informant’s son was in love with Archana Kumari, daughter of petitioner no.1 and sister of petitioner no.2 and in fact they solemnized marriage. It would appear from the case diary that both of them were subsequently caught by the police at Alwar, Rajasthan and produced before the Magistrate from where they were allowed to go with their respective parents. The father of the girl and the guardian of the victim boy agreed to marry them as per Hindu rituals, but later on, the parents of the victim boy refused to accept their marriage and lodged the instant case against the petitioners and other accused persons. Counsel for the State submits that the informant and other family members have alleged the involvement of these petitioners in the abduction of the informant’s son as the latter refused to solemnize the marriage with the daughter of petitioner no.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of materials on record, I am not inclined to interfere with 3 KHAN impugned order dated 27.1.2005 taking cognizance against the petitioners. This application is accordingly dismissed. The trial court is directed to commit the case to the court of sessions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It would be open to the petitioners to take all these points raised in this application at the time of framing of charge, without prejudice. (S.P.Singh,J)