- (1.) Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order 18.02.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sahibganj, in P.C.R. Case No. 10 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 267 of 2010 under Sections 323 / 368 of the Indian Penal Code. Few undisputed facts need to be narrated. (A) Respondent No. 2- Lakshman Singh S/o of Raj Kumar Singh, is an employee in the Civil Court, Sahibganj, and is working as Assistant. His daughter-Anupama Kumari was staying with her maternal grand-father (Nana) at Ranchi. Anupama Kumari went missing on 21.12.2009. Shri Haribansh Singh, Nana of victim- Anupama Kumari and father-in-law of Shri Lakshman Singh- Respondent No. 2, lodged an F.I.R. with Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi, which was registered as P.S. Case No. 897 of 2009 under Section 364(A) I.P.C. In the F.I.R.; Shri Haribansh Singh has stated that Anupama Kumari, while coming back from the Women's College, Ranchi, has phoned him at about 5 p.m. informing him that she was near the Metro Gali; thereafter, when she did not reach home, Haribansh Singh started searching her; meanwhile, on his mobile phone No. 9931583054, a call came from mobile No. 9955599245; Caller has disclosed his name as Samarjeet Roshan and asked him to pay Rs. 5 lacs as ransom, if he wants back Anupama Kumari; Caller has further told that Anupama Kumari is kidnapped by him; Meanwhile, mother of the victim- Anupama Kumari, who was at Sahibganj also received the phone calls demanding ransom from the same phone number. (B) Haribansh Singh has also filed W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010 before this Court saying police is not investigating the case properly, therefore, police be directed to recover the girl. In W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010, victim- Anupama Kumari has moved an application being LA. No. 2305 of 2010, seeking intervention in the writ petition. This Court vide order dated 13.02.2010, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010 has added Anupama Kumari as one of the party respondent. However, learned single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2012 has directed the victim Anupama Kumari to appear before the Investigating Officer of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station in connection with Kotwali Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 897 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 5329 of 2009 for her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, if it is not yet recorded; further, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to get victim Anupama Kumari examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C, if it is needed. (C) On 24.11.2010, Police has filed charge sheet against Samarjeet Roshan only for an offence punishable under Section 366A I.P.C. It is mentioned by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet that on 13.08.2010, accused Samarjeet Roshan and victim Anupama Kumari had appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. C.J.M., Sahibganj has sent the accused in the judicial custody to the jail while Anupama Kumari has returned from the court. Thereafter, she could not be traced, therefore, further investigation is still on. In the charge sheet Respondent No. 2 is cited as witness No. 2. (D) On 14.06.2011, Anupama Kumari appeared in the witness box before the trial court in S.T. No. 73 of 2011 and has stated on oath that she was never kidnapped. She has married to the accused Samarjeet Roshan and their marriage was registered in Munger, Bihar. She is having seven months old child out of their wedlock. (E) In W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010, too, Anupama Kumari did appear and has made statement before the Bench hearing W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010 to the effect she has happily married with Samarjeet Roshan and they have one male child from the wedlock. On 20.04.2012, learned single Judge of this Court has disposed of W.P.(Cr.) No. 162 of 2010. Order dated 20.04.2012 is being reproduced herein as under :- At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the order dated 5.4.2012 the name of petitioner has been wrongly typed as Hardeo Prasad Singh in place of Haribansh Singh. Let it be read accordingly. As per the direction given by this Court vide, order dated 5.4.2012, missing girl Anupama has appeared before the Court and the I.O. is also present. It is pointed out that the statement of the girl has already been recorded by the I.O. The father of the girl is also present and he identified his daughter Anupama. The victim girl Anupama, her husband and child may be provided proper protection for their return to their place of stay at Katihar, if needed. Since the missing girl has appeared, learned counsel does not want to proceed further with the present writ petition and accordingly he seeks permission to withdraw this writ application. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. (F) Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2, who is working as Assistant in Civil Court, Sahibganj, has filed one private complaint in the court of C.J.M., Sahibganj, being P.C.R. Case No. 10 of 2010 against the present petitioner and five others on 11.01.2010. Respondent No. 2- complainant has stated in the criminal complaint that her daughter was kidnapped by Samarjeet Roshan on 21.12.2009 from Ranchi, wherein she was staying with her maternal grand-father (Nana). Samarjeet Roshan has demanded Rs. Five lacs as ransom from the Nana of Anupama Kumari. Haribansh Singh, Father-in-law of the Complainant has narrated him (Respondent No. 2) on phone the entire incident of kidnapping of Anupama Kumari and demand of ransom by Samarjeet Roshan from him (Haribansh Singh). It has further been alleged that on 26.12.2009, Samarjeet Roshan, main accused has kept his daughter in the house of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Sahibganj and when he went to the house of the accused persons, he was thrashed and sent back. Vide order dated 18.02.2010, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sahibganj has directed to issue summons against the petitioner as well as against five other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 368 I.P.C.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved, present petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pursuant to complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 herein, being P.C.R. Case no. 10 of 2010 and order taking cognizance dated 18.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1" Class, Sahibganj.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.;