LAWS(PAT)-2008-4-74

AKHILESH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 17, 2008
Akhilesh Choudhary Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners who alongwith 10 unknown others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 696 of 2004. for allegedly abducting the son of the complainant, through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.5.2005 passed therein by Sri A.K. Verma, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 364A I.P.C. against the petitioners.

(2.) ONE Madan Mohan Prasad filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia, alleging that while his son Rakesh Kumar was in his foodgrain shop the two petitioners alongwith 10 unknown others came to the shop at around 6 P.M., called Rakesh Kumar outside the shop and as soon as he came out the accused persons surrounded him and at a pistol point compelled him to go with them on foot and after travelling for some distance they put him on a marshal jeep and went away towards Rafigunj. The complainant claims to have raised hulla but the accused managed to escape. He claims to have gone to the police station who gave assurances of recovering his son. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile an unknown person arrived and delivered to him a letter wherein a demand of Rs. one lac had been made by way of ransom. It appears that the learned Magistrate after holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners by the impugned order.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that during the pendency of the case the parties had compounded their differences and entered into a compromise and they had filed a joint compromise petition before the Court below wherein the complainant had clearly stated that his son lives in his sasural at Manpur and the present case had been filed only due to misunderstanding. In support of the submissions reliance has been placed on a decision reported in 1995(1) P.L.J.R. 668 wherein it was observed that where the informant was no longer willing to proceed with the case, the F.I.R. may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even when the offence is not compoundable. Reliance was also placed on the decision reported in 2007(1) P.L.J.R. 675.