IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14449 of 2010 BIRENDRA SINGH, son of Late Keshri Singh, resident of Padari, Police Station- Buxar (Industrial), District- Buxar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shailendra Singh, son of Sidheshwar Singh, resident of Parri, Police Station-Buxar (Industrial), District- Buxar. … Opp. Parties. With Cr.Misc. No.50599 of 2007 BIRENDRA SINGH, son of Late Keshri Singh, resident of Padari, Police Station- Buxar (Industrial), District- Buxar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shailendra Singh, son of Sidheshwar Singh, resident of Parri, Police Station- Buxar (Industrial), District- Buxar. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 3. 22.09.2010 Cr. Misc. No.14449 of 2010 Heard counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned in this application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the Cr. Misc. No. 50599 of 2007 is restored to its original file. Cr. Misc. No. 14449 of 2010 is, accordingly, disposed of. Cr. Misc. No. 50599 of 2007 This case has been notified today and is being heard itself along with the restoration application. 2 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In a prosecution for offence under Section 364 A of the Indian Penal Code, the prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance is based on the simple analogy that even when the petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and the police after detailed investigation had found no role of the petitioner and had accordingly submitted final form, the impugned order taking cognizance by way of differing from the police report passed by learned Magistrate is bad because there was no material in the case diary to connect the petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in his usual articulate and attractive manner had taken meticulous pain to point out from all the statements including the statement of the father of victim boy that he had not named the petitioner and therefore the solitary material found in the case-diary by way of confession of co-accused Baraku Singh naming the petitioner to be also involved in the alleged kidnapping of the victim boy could not have been relied inasmuch it was said only by Baraku Singh that co-accused Satyendra 3 Singh had informed the father of the victim boy, Suresh Singh as with regard to complicity of the petitioner. He would submit that first of all the statement of co-accused by itself is a weak evidence and secondly in the present case when Suresh Singh, father of the victim boy had altogether denied any role played by the petitioner, the perception of learned magistrate by relying on the statement of Baraku Singh for differing with the police report cannot be upheld either on facts or in law. Attractive though the aforesaid submission may be, this Court would however find from the detailed statement of Baraku Singh that first of all it is an inculpatory statement wherein he has given full detail of the offence in question and his own complicity in the alleged kidnapping. It is in this context, he has also given the detail of distribution of ransom amount and there he has not only revealed the role of the petitioner but also stated that the petitioner had given Rs.10,000/- to the other accused for committing the offence of kidnapping the victim boy. At the stage of taking cognizance, learned magistrate was not required to go into the correctness or 4 otherwise of the statement of Baraku Singh and thus it would be very difficult to hold that there was no material at all for connecting the petitioner in the case diary. How far such inculpatory statement of Baraku Singh will ultimately bind the petitioner in course of trial is an altogether different aspect but it cannot be said with certainty that it is a case of no evidence as against the petitioner. That being so, this Court would find it difficult to allow the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the proceeding at the threshold of the prosecution. Accordingly, this application is rejected with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)