IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.6949 of 2009 1. RAJ KUMAR PODDAR, SON OF DAHU PODDAR 2. PRAKASH KUMAR PODDAR @ OM PRAKASH PODDAR, SON OF RAJ KUMAR PODDAR. 3. MANTU SAH, SON OF RAJU SAH. 4. DHARMENDRA SAH, SON OF RAJU SAH. 5. SHARWAN SAH @ SHARWAN KUMAR SAH, SON OF RAJU SAH. 6. GAUTAM SAH @ GAUTAM KUMAR SAH, SON OF SANTI SAH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – KHUSIBAGH, BAJRANGI TOLA, P.S. – SADAR, DISTRICT – PURNIA. .................... PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ................ OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Sri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Ahtasham Ali Khan, Advocate. For the O.P. :- Sri Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate. 03/ 15.12.2010 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnia in Cr. Rev. No. 238 of 2006 by which the Sessions Judge confirm the order dated 05.06.2006 passed by C.J.M, Purnia taking cognizance for an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the daughter of the informant Kiran Kumari aged about 17 years while going from her house to Purnia college then at the Don Basco School she 2 was kidnapped by 6-7 persons in a Sumo Car and it is alleged that there is prior litigation and they used to threat to kidnap the daughter. However, on the basis of the fardbeyan the FIR was lodged and after investigation final form was submitted and during the period of investigation a protest petition was filed and hence after the filing of the final form, the final form was accepted and the protest petition was treated as complaint and after proceeding during the period of the inquiry and after inquiry the order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was prior enmity and hence the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and which prior enmity is itself admitted in the First Information Report of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that though the final form was submitted victim statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and hence contended that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to prior enmity the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is one case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C and another case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner is the witness and hence has been implicated. Learned counsel for the State, however, contended that there is allegation and the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C has supported the prosecution case and even in the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C the witness has supported the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, since allegations make out an offence and the question of false allegation is a disputed question of fact that can only be decided in the trial, hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)