JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2001 passed by learned Addl. C.J.M. cum-Spl. C.J.M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar in SPE No. 3 of 2000 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 120B, 109, 201, 328, 342, 354, 366, 506, 509, 376/ 511, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was not named in the FIR nor any allegation was made against him by.either the alleged victim Harapriya Barik or by any other person to the effect that he was instrumental in inducing Harapriya Barik to accompany Smt. Pravasini Kar to Bhubaneswar or to have participated in- the alleged molestation or attempt to rape. In view of such nature of material available on record, there was no reason for the investigating agency to submit a chargesheet against the Petitioner and the learned CBI Judge also without application of mind has mechanically taken cognizance of the offences. 3. Mr. D. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that Harapriya Barik during the investigation has not implicated the Petitioner in any manner with regard to the incident which is alleged to have taken place at Bhubaneswar on 9.7.1999 and she has only stated that she and Smt. Pravasini Kar were brought from Smt. Kar's house to the overbridge near Fakir Mohan College, Balasore by her son (the present Petitioner) from where both of them went to Bhubaneswar and had gone to Krishna Tower at Nayapalli where the alleged incident of attempted rape took place. According to Mr. Panda, the above evidence even if accepted on its face value does not constitute an offence under. Section 120B, Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that if the ingredients of Section 120B fail, there being no other allegation against the Petitioner the order taking cognizance has to be quashed. 4. Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the CBI, on the other hand, referring to the case diary, chargesheet and statement of the victim Harapriya Barik submitted that there are enough materials on record to indicate that the Petitioner was a party to the conspiracy which led to the occurrence that took place in Bhubaneswar and prima facie materials being available in this regard the Court should not interfere with the order taking cognizance. 5. 5. It appears that a news item was published in a local newspaper about a sex racket being run by the PT.C. of Kuntala Kumari Sabat Women's College, Balasore and as an incident it was stated in the said publication that one girl was abducted and taken by the said PT.C. to Bhubaneswar where attempts were made to use her for immoral purpose. On the basis of the said news item a writ application was filed before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of on 9.5.2000 directing the CBI to investigate into the matter. The prosecution allegation is that Smt. Pravasini Kar, PT.C. of the aforesaid college, had taken deceitfully one college girl, namely, Harapriya Barik to Bhubaneswar on 9.7.1999 in connivance with one of her accomplices and wrongfully confined her in an apartment for the purpose of exploitation. The further case of the prosecution is that attempts were made to seduce the girl by forcing her to watch a pornography film and also by offering her soft drink mixed with liquor. It is also the case of the prosecution that the male accomplice of Smt. Pravasini Kar attempted to commit rape on the said girl who somehow or other managed to escape by locking her inside a both room. During investigation the said victim girl Harapriya Barik was examined. In her statement she had stated that on 9.7.1999 Smt. Kar called her in the college sports room and informed that certificates regarding her participation at Simla had been received and she was asked to distribute the certificates amongst the participants. At that time she noticed that the seal of the Utkal University on her certificate was missing. When it was brought to the notice of Smt. Pravasini Kar she advised her to accompany her to Bhubaneswar so that the work can be done on the same day. She was also advised to go to her house between 1.30 and 2 PM.. This witness has further stated that since her mother was not well she decided to postpone the visit and went to Smt. Kar's house on cycle and met her on the way. She told her problem but Smt. Kar assured her that they would return back on the same day, Thereafter, Smt. Kar came to her house and took her to Bhoisahi in a scooter. She told her problem but Smt. Kar assured her that they would return back on the same day, Thereafter, Smt. Kar came to her house and took her to Bhoisahi in a scooter. In the house of Smt. Kar this witness saw the Petitioner waiting for them in a Maruti Van. Thereafter, the Petitioner dropped them at the overbridge near Fakir Mohan Chhak in his Maruti van and from there they went to Bhubaneswar by bus and reached Bhubaneswar at about 9 PM. Thereafter she has narrated the incident that took place in Bhubaneswar. After coming back from Bhubaneswar it is alleged by this witness that Mrs. Lopamurdra Mohanty, the then Chairperson of the Mahila Samity had come to Balasore to enquire into the matter but she could not meet her as Smt. Pravasini Kar arid the present Petitioner prevented her from coming out of her house. She has also alleged that there has been constant threat from Smt. Kar to kill all her family members and her son. She has also stated that she was compelled to file an affidavit, as desired by Smt. Kar and the present Petitioner, The manner in which the affidavit was filed at Cuttack and the role played by the present Petitioner have been vividly described by this witness in her statement. In view of such materials available from the statement of the victim girl herself it is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Panda that there is no evidence on record to support the offence u/s 120B, Indian Penal Code. 6. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance and accordingly the CRMC is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed