Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1135 (PAT)

Ratan Mala Devi v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-28

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even after service of notice. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.7.2005 passed in S.T. No. 483 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IVth, Purnea whereby summons has been issued against the petitioner for facing trial. It transpires that Banmankhi RS. Case No. 212 of 2002 was instituted by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner and one Pankaj Kumar Mishra alleging commission of offence under sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Daughter of the informant was alleged to have been kidnapped by Pankaj Kumar Mishra. This Pankaj Kumar Mishra was working as servant of Kirana Shop of Deokant Mandal, the husband of the petitioner. During investigation no evidence was collected showing the involvement of the petitioner in the offence as such final form was submitted in her favour. The informant did not file any protest against the investigation. During trial P.W. 1 Panna Prasad Singh and P.W. 2 Shalini Singh were examined. In his evidence P.W.1 stated that Ratan Mala Devi the petitioner used to live by the side of his house. Ratan Mala Devi and her husband informed about Pankaj Kumar Mishra. P.W. 2 stated that in course of enquiry some etters and diary of Pankaj Kumar was found in her house. On the basis of this evidence, summons under sec. 319 has been issued. 3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that so far the involvement of the petitioner in this case is concerned, it was found in course of investigation that she has not committed any offence and final form was submitted. Informant had no grievance as such she did not file any protest. There is no material against the petitioner even in the evidence of the witnesses for summoning her to face the trial. The evidence which has been annexed alongwith this petition do not indicate that the petitioner was involved in any offence under sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Material which are on the record are not sufficient for issuing summons under sec. 319 Cr. PC. 4. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.7.2005 passed in S.T. No. 483 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IVth, Pumea is quashed.