JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Section 397/401 Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 1.6.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, in CR Case No. 120/2008, against the present accused-petitioner under Sections 342/385/294/506/34 IPC and the order subsequent thereto, i.e 20.7.2011 fixing the GAHC010194402011 case for further examination of the witnesses for the complainant. 2. I have perused the copy of the FIR which is annexed as Annexure-1 at page-12 as well as petition of the complaint annexed as Annexure-2 at page-15 onwards. 3. Heard Mr. S.K Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Ramananda as well as Mr. T. Baidya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. State respondent No. 1 is represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S.H Bora. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that issue involved in the complaint was also more or less similar in the FIR lodged by the daughter-in-law of the present complainant. 5. The present accused-petitioner is one of the 7 accused persons named in the complaint petition. The complaint case, referred to above, being a warrant procedure case, the learned trial court recorded the evidence before charge and on consideration of the evidence recorded before charge, a formal charge was framed under the aforesaid provisions of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the FIR, referred to above, husband of the informant Sri. Pradip Kurmi was kidnapped and thereafter he was recovered. Recovery of the husband of the informant of the said FIR, referred to above, as well as son of the present complainant is said to be in discharge of official duty of the accused No. 4 who is a police officer as the offence alleged was committed within the jurisdiction of his police station. On perusal of the complaint petition itself, it appears that the accused persons named in the complaint including the present accused-petitioner had confined the husband of the informant aforesaid/son of the complainant as well as the complainant for several days and thereafter the complainant was taken in a vehicle to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Biswanath Chariali. On perusal of the complaint petition itself, it appears that the accused persons named in the complaint including the present accused-petitioner had confined the husband of the informant aforesaid/son of the complainant as well as the complainant for several days and thereafter the complainant was taken in a vehicle to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Biswanath Chariali. It is understandable that if a complaint or information is made or given to the police officer in respect of kidnapping or missing of a person, in discharge of his official duty he will search for the kidnapped person and will recover him. In the instant case, if the admitted fact is accepted to be correct, then till the time of recovery of the kidnapped person, Pradip Kurmi, the accused-petitioner was doing his official duty. But, as per records available before this court, confined and then taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar, aforesaid, and allegedly committed some mischief in compelling her to put signature in some papers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed on the fact that the police officer, i.e the accused-petitioner is roped in the present case due to extraneous reason and not for the fact that the complainant was wrongfully confined and compelled to go to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Biswanath Chariali. These are the questions of facts raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and needs to be looked into by the learned trial court through evidence on record. 7. In exercise of power of this court under Section 482 Cr.PC, it is not possible to make a roving enquiry on the facts alleged by either of the parties, and that being so, it is the domain of the learned trial court. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the accused-petitioner to approach the learned trial court at appropriate stage with the submission he has made before this court which the learned trial court will consider on its own merit and will take an appropriate decision. 9. The criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.