Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 184 (PAT)

Pitamber Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-21

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Camp Court Rosera in Criminal Revision No. 481 of 2004 by which he has upheld the order of Sri V.D. Rai, J.M. Rosera refusing the prayer of the petitioner to commit G.R. Case No. 34 of 2003/Tr. No. 720 of 2005 to the Court of Session. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner had lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 16.1.2003 at 7-8 p.m.. opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 along with some unknown persons came to the door of the informant and called him and they took him at a distance of about 200 meters from his house. They were armed with pistols. The petitioner asked them as to where they were taking him. On this they replied that they had abducted him and would not release him unless he pay them at that time Rs. 50,000/- and rupees two lakhs after ten days. They also threatened him that otherwise they would kill him. The petitioner paid them Rs. 7500/- which was with him. In the meantime, the villagers came to know of the incident and the accused persons fled away giving the petitioner threatening that they would come again on 18.1.2003 and if he would not pay them Rs. 50,000/- on the date, they would kill him. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 447, 341, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-B) A and 26 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was accordingly taken. 4. At trial charges were framed under the above sections. After examination of five prosecution witnesses, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 323, Cr PC to commit the case to the Court on Session on the ground that an offence under Section 364-A. IPC which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session is made out against the opposite parties. Shri V.D. Rai, J.M. 1st Class. Rosera alter perusing the FIR and the evidence of the Witnesses came to the conclusion that no offance under Section 364-A, IPC is made out in the case. He accordingly rejected the prayer of the prosecution. 5. The petitioner himself filed a revision application against the above order. Shri V.D. Rai, J.M. 1st Class. Rosera alter perusing the FIR and the evidence of the Witnesses came to the conclusion that no offance under Section 364-A, IPC is made out in the case. He accordingly rejected the prayer of the prosecution. 5. The petitioner himself filed a revision application against the above order. The learned 4th Additional Sessions, Judge, Samastipur, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP who opposed the prayer also held that no ingredient of the offence under Section 364-A, IPC is made out on the allegations. He, hence, passed the impugned order dismissing the revision application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR and the evidence led on that basis in Court would show that the petitioner was abducted for ransom. Hence, the opposite parties were liable for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case should have been com mitted to the Court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the revision application. 7. At the outset it may be mentioned that though the petitioner has filed an application under the provisions of Section 482 Cr PC, the application, in fact, is an application for revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Revision application. Therefore, the application is barred under the provisions of Section 399(3), Cr PC. 8. Besides this, even if it be assumed that the application is maintainable Section 364-A, IPC reads thus : "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnaping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any person to do or abstain from doing any Act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to line." 9. The section. The section. therefore, is clear that in order to constitute an offence under this Section the demand to pay ransom must be made to any person other than the person kidnapped/abducted but in this case the demand to pay ransom was made to the petitioner himself who was allegedly kidnaped by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, both the Courts below were correct in holding that no offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the opposite parties. So, on this score also the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 10. In the result, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. This application is accordingly dismissed.