In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1652 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:July 09, 2010 Subhash Chander ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.J.P.Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition by Subhash Chander, Petitioner- complainant, is directed against the order dated 7.5.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which he charged the accused- respondents No. 2 to 6 for the offences under Sections 328, 363, 372 read with Sections 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, though the FIR ( No. 535 of 2.12.2005) was registered for the offences under Sections 342, 364,365 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 364 IPC is prima facie made out against respondents No. 2 to 6 and they should have been charged for that offence also. In Crl. Revision No. 1652 of 2010(O&M) -2- support of his submission he has referred to the contents of the FIR which are reproduced below:- “On account of fear I told to my father that we are in the marriage and the person of marriage do not allow us to come and that you might go after the “Pheres” and saying so cut the mobile and went away after dropping us near old Police Station Park and said that if this was told to your parents then you and your parents would be killed. In fear I reached my house and after coming to house, I told all this to my parents and family.” This threat to kill was given to the complainant after she was dropped near old Police Station Park. No such threat was given at the time she was kidnapped. For constituting offence under Section 364 IPC, it is necessary that the kidnapping must be with intention to murder the person so kidnapped or for disposing him/her of as to be put in danger of being murdered. No offence under Section 364 IPC is made out from the contents of the FIR, upon which the petitioner is relying. Therefore, respondents No. 2 to 6 were not to be charged of that offence. There is no merit in this revision `petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 09, 2010 PARAMJIT