Judgment 1. The petitioner who though not named in the F.l.R. of Laheri P.S. Case No. 62 of 2006 but whose name came up in course of investigation has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 2.7.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby cognizance has been taken against him under Sections 364A, 120B/34 I.P.C. 2. One Sanjay Kumar Singh gave his fardbeyan at 21.30 hours on 28.4.2006 inter alia alleging that earlier that day at around 9 P.M. when he was returning to his residence after closing his motor parts shop running in the name and style of Jai Ma Durge alongwith his younger brother Shashi Ranjan Kumar and reached near the temple, he heard the sound of his younger brother who was walking a few steps behind and on turning back he saw that 4-5 unknown persons were forcibly pushing his brother into a white colour maruti van, the registration number whereof he could not read. It is also alleged that there was some scuffle between his brother and the kidnappers in which the lunch box and the slippers of the victim were thrown away. The informant and one Tarkeshwar Prasad, the owner of "Mangla Traders", raised alarm hearing which the people of the nearby area assembled there and started running after the maruti van which sped towards Ambedkar Chauraha. In the meanwhile, the police also reached the place and also gave chase to the maruti van. It has been alleged that there were five persons in the van including the driver. The informant was sanguine in his mind that his brother had been kidnapped with an intention to extort ransom. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a resident of Kolkata and deals with a mobile shop running in the name and style of "R.K. Communications" and in course of investigation, it transpired that the ransom call had been made from an Airtel Mobile SIM Card bearing No. 9831549153 and the said SIM Card had been purchased from the shop of the petitioner. It was further contended that there is no allegation whatsoever in the case diary about the involvement of the petitioner in the said abduction and the only material available against him is in paragraph 47 of the case diary which mentions that the SIM Card in question was purchased from the shop of the petitioner by submitting false and forged documents in the name of one Vijay Sharma. 4. I have had the occasion to peruse the case diary which had been called for and it appears from paragraph 60 thereof, which is the statement of one Dharmendra Roy who has stated that he used to earn through extortion and collection of ransom with his associates, Dilip Singh, Raja and others from the areas in an around Nalanda, Vaishali and Muzaffarpur but this witness had not named the petitioner as one of his accomplices. It also appears that the statement of the victim, Shashi Ranjan Kumar, has also been recorded who has merely stated that he was kidnapped by some unknown persons but did not divulge the name of the petitioner as one of the kidnappers. 5. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therein some documents which are his defence which t am afraid cannot be looked into at this stage. 6. From perusal of the case diary and the investigation, the fact remains that the SIM card in question had been purchased from the shop of the petitioner in Kolkata. 7. On going through the entire records of the case, I am not inclined, at this stage, to interfere with the proceedings of the case. If the petitioner so desires, he may raise all these issues as have been raised herein, before the trial court at the time of framing of charge and in the event such issues are raised, it is expected that the trial court will consider those issues on merit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. For the present, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.