Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 28-10-1993 through which congnizance of the offence under Sections 497, 498, 364/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chasibasa in Sadar Post P. S. Case No. 37/93 and also for quashing this entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner, 2. The fact in short giving rise this application is that Nirmal Kumar Sinha lodged an FIR on 12-6-1993 alleging therein that he was living in a rented house in Mohalla Bara Bazar at Chaibasa and he had gone out of his house on 8-6-1993 in the early morning in connection with the official work and when he returned, he found his wife Punam missing and his two children were kept in the housa of a rerlation and subsequently he learnt that this very petitioner abducted her wife along with valuable ornaments and had taken her to Calcutta in order to kill her and to take the valuable ornaments etc. On the written report of the informant, a police case was instituted on 12-6-1993. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 497, 498, 364/120-B, IPC as against this petideclared as absconder and one Sheo Kumar Sahi and the learned Chief tioner who was Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in C.R. Case No. 313/93 vide order dated 28-10-1993. 3. At the very outset the learned lawyer for the petitioner challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the learned C. J. M. took cognizance of the offence without application of the judicial mind and that too the order is bad for the reason that practically there is no evidence which has come during investigation to prove prima facie offence under Section 364, IPC and further the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 497 and 498 of the IPC is also not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 198, Cr. P. C. it was further contended that in the case diary there is no evidence at all that the wife of the informant was abducted by the petitioner and others for commission of her murder ; rather it can be said that during the investigation this much has come that the lady Punam Devi, admittedly a married woman of the informant, was anticed away by the petitioner for commission of adultery or with the mention that she may be forced in illicit intercourse with the petitioner or any other person. 4. During investigation, sufficient evidence has come to show that that the petitioner enticed away or abducted the wife of the informant and had taken her to Calcutta. On this poiat there is evidence of the said servant, servant and even that of the owner of the car in which the lady was taken to Jamshedpur. Moreover, there is statement of victim lady herself recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. which clearly indicates that the petitioner who was in visiting term told her that her husband met with an accident at Jamshedpur and she was urgently raquirsid there and so she accompanied him in a car and from there she was taken to Calcutta by force after threatening and at Calcutta she was kept in different hotels and the petitioner made and attempt to establish sexaul relationship which she protested but inspite of that the petitioner forcibly slept which her and somehow or other she escaped to her parents house at Dhanbad. So even if there is no sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner so far Section 364, IPC concerned, but definitely Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted because the petitioner abducted a woman with intention to have sexual intercourse with her and induced the lady to accompany him on a false pretext that her husband met with an accident. Further in view of the statement of the lady, there is no two opinion that Section 354, IPC is also attracted at this stage. 5. Further in view of the statement of the lady, there is no two opinion that Section 354, IPC is also attracted at this stage. 5. So, no doubt, the cognizance of the offence under Section 364, IPC has been taken, but there is no two opinion that the cognizance, taking Magistrate simply takes cognizance of the offence and mentioning of any section or mentioning of wrong section of the IPC at the time of the order will not vitiate the order of cognizance at all and it can also be said that the matter can be enquired in detail fat the time of framing of the charges and if there is evidence in the case diary to justify framing of the charges under Sections 366 and 354, IPC then the trial Court will proced according to law and for that reason that entire criminal prosecution or the order of Cognizance is not to be quashed. For quashing the criminal prosecution, the only thing to be considered under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is if any offence punishable under the law is made out or not. In the case in hand, definitely there is evidence which had come during investigation to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 366 and 364, IPC. 6. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that at best only a case under Section 498, IPC is made out because admittedly the lady is a married woman and wife of the informant and if at all she enticed away and detained with criminal intention then Section 498, IPC is attracted. If that is so, the case will proceed only on the basis of a complaint to be lodged by the aggrieved party, that is, the husband as required under Section 198 sub-section (2) of the Cr. P. C. and unless a complaint is filed by the husband, no court is entitled to take cognizance of the offence and in the instant case, actually on the basis of the police report, congnizance of the offence under Section 498, IPC had been taken by the court below and the complaint as definted in Section 2 (d) of the Cr. P. C. clearly indicates that even a report made by the police officer can be treated as a complaint then in that contingency, the said Police Officer will be the complainant and not the husband. P. C. clearly indicates that even a report made by the police officer can be treated as a complaint then in that contingency, the said Police Officer will be the complainant and not the husband. It is true that in a proceeding for the offence under Section 498, IPC, a complaint by the aggrieved party that is the husband is necessary. The hasband actually lodged an FIR and if at all offence under Section 498 will proceed in the instant case or not, is to be examined by the court below itself at the time of framing of the charges. Even if Section 498, IPC is not attracted in the instant case for the reason that no such complain was filed by the aggieved party, that is, the husband, but definitely prima faciely there is evidence on record to proceed against the petitioner and others under Sections 366 and 354, IPC and also under Sections 120-B, IPC and as such in any view of the matter no case is made out for quashing the entire criminal prosecution or the order of cognizance. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this application and so it is dismissed.